Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want
>> it to show that it's now safe. The situation is not different than it
>> was before, except that we can now actually point to a specific bug that
>> did exist, whereas the original concern was just an unfocused one that
>> the code path hadn't been adequately exercised. That concern is now
>> even more pressing than it was.
> I am not sure how you prove the non-existance of a bug. Ideas?
What I'm looking for is some concentrated testing. The fact that some
people once in a while SIGTERM a backend doesn't give me any confidence
in it.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
