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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073