Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > And who can guarantee that this kind of flaw cannot happen
> > anywhere else? There are many, very old regression tests.
> > Some of them go back to the roots, Postgres 4.2, and I'm not
> > sure anyone ever looked at the expected results lately, if
> > they are really what SHOULD be expected. The tenk data for
> > example is something where even I don't know where it was
> > coming from, and I already joined the Postgres community with
> > release 4.2 back in 1994.
>
> Thomas is the regression man, and has checked the output to see that
> it was expected in the past. I assume he will regenerate it soon.
Oh yeah, I've seen his response with great pleasure. I did
not knew that there's really someone taking care for
breakage->expected glitches.
> A good point is that he can use the old psql to see any changes/breakage
> in the backend code, but can _not_ use the new psql to check because the
> output is different. That is a good point, and I think the one Jan was
> making.
Yes. The verification, if the new expected output is correct,
needs one or more eyes (and AFAIK Thomas has good ones - he's
one of a fistful who notice mistakes in my statements even if
they are between the lines :-)).
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
