Dann Corbit wrote: > PostgreSQL is a fairly mature product, having been in existence in one > form or another for many years now. > > I expect that most of the bugs that surface will be in areas of new > functionality. > > Great Bridge had the right idea though. Let's suppose that they ran > 10,000 tests and turned up only one bug. That would be just as valuable > (if not more so) than turning up 100 bugs. A large, carefully designed > test system is *proof* of software quality, or at least of the effort to > determine the quality level. It is also proof of the responsibility of > the software's originators.
Look at the cost/benefit ratio to that. If you think we don't have to care about cost/benefit, well, it would be pretty amazing if we didn't. > Scenario: > You are going to install a tool that your organization will invest its > future in. > > Vendor A: "We think our tool is pretty solid and our end users hardly > ever turn up any bugs." > > Vendor B:" We think our tool is pretty solid and our 8500 tests > currently show only 3 defects with the released version, and these are > low impact issues. To view our current database of issues, log onto web > form <page>." > > Which tool would you prefer to install? I don't think commerical vendors, with those 8500 test, are are doing any better in reliability than PostgreSQL, and in fact, I think they are doing worse, and have to expend much more effort than we do. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend