> -----Original Message----- > From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:00 PM > To: Dann Corbit > Cc: Tom Lane; Jason Earl; PostgreSQL-development > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze > > > 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?).
It does get silly at a point, but I have seen systems with 128 characters for table names, column names, etc. Some people seem to like it. Not me. Too much typing. > Other things tested are clearly wrong (things that are = > NULL, Sounds like testing for the existence of a bug. X = NULL X <= NULL X >= NULL Etc. must always test false, regardless of the contents of X. Test for equality with NULL is a conformance error if NULL == NULL returns true. > dates like '00-00-0000'); Not sure what that might even mean. > 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. So far, I have seen three problems pointed out (out of 600+ tests). That's 0.5% defects. Why not just drop the stupid tests, or bend them to test for what they ought to be testing. Besides those three, what other tests are bogus and why? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster