Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

OK, here is an opportunity for someone to run tests to get this into
8.2.  The code already exists in CVS, but we need testing to enable it.
I would think running a huge workload and killing it over and over again
would be a good test.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(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

Reply via email to