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

Reply via email to