Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > 3) Dann is proposing not just a feature but sweeping changes to the way our
> > commmunity works, despite having been a member of this community for about 3
> > weeks total.
>
> In Dann's defense, I didn't think I heard him proposing that we get rid
> of our existing testing methods, but rather that we see if we can't
> supplement them with something more formal. This strikes me as a
> perfectly reasonable proposal. However, he hasn't succeeded in
> convincing anyone else to put their time into it (for reasons that
> are also perfectly reasonable, namely that we find that our existing
> methods do pretty well, and we don't have the manpower to create a large
> formal testing structure ... even if we thought it would repay the effort,
> which many of us doubt). So it's his itch to scratch, or not.
>
> Unless there's something more profitable to be said on the subject,
> could we drop the thread?
One thing that came out of the thread is the fact that many people who
use PostgreSQL do testing in many different ways, and that much of the
stability of PostgreSQL can be attributed to that.
It occurs to me that there may be (perhaps) a lot of duplication of
effort there that could be reduced a bit.
So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and
data they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
others through that mechanism.
And any tests which prove to be particularly useful could make their
way into the PG distribution if people here wish.
Of course, like anything else this could be a bad (or perhaps redundant)
idea. :-)
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com