On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > I don't understand why this is particularly difficult to regresssion >> > test. It actually is comparatively simple? >> >> If it is, great. I previously wrote this email: >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZ=vzrijmxlkqi_v0jg4k4leapmwusc6rwxs5mquxu...@mail.gmail.com >> >> Alvaro came up with a way of addressing the second point I raised >> there, which I'm quite pleased about, but AFAIK there's been no >> progress on the first one. Maybe I missed something? > > I unfortunately don't think so. And that sounds like a completely > reasonable criticism.
I'm glad you agree. If you can find a way to address that point, I can live with the rest of it. I don't think it's dumb to be concerned about features that increase the cost of adding more features. But what really concerns me is that that code won't be well-tested, and if there are cases missing or somebody forgets to do it altogether, it's very likely that we won't notice. That seems like a huge problem from where I sit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
