On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:25:08PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:

Citing Tom Lane:
> > I have been through crash-me in some detail, and it left a 
> > very bad taste in my mouth.  Don't bother holding it up as an 
> > example of good practice.
> Every single test in their list is interesting and useful.

At least on the version I just saw there are several results with
Postgres that are weird (table names > 500 chars?).  Other things tested
are clearly wrong (things that are = NULL, dates like '00-00-0000');
results for Postgres that are wrong probably because they are trying a
weird syntax. Etc.

Things like that drive the credibility of the whole thing to the floor.
Maybe something like this should exist for Postgres, but it's not
crash-me.  Maybe the NIST compliance test is adequate.

Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"La conclusion que podemos sacar de esos estudios es que
no podemos sacar ninguna conclusion de ellos" (Tanenbaum)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to