On May 21, 2010, at 18:26 , Stephen Frost wrote: > * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: >> These need to be testable conditions, and new tests need to get added >> any time we find that we've missed something. Making this concept >> fuzzier is exactly the wrong direction to go. > > I'm really not sure that we want to be in the business of writing a ton > of regression tests to see if languages which claim to be trusted really > are..
Well, testing software security via regression tests certainly is sounds intriguing. But unfortunately, it's impossible also AFAICS - it'd amount to testing for the *absence* of features, which seems hard... I suggest the following definition of "trusted PL". "While potentially preventing excruciating pain, saving tons of sweat and allowing code reuse, actually adds nothing in terms of features over pl/pgsql". best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
