| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Releasing in September |
| Date: | 2016-01-21 05:49:48 |
| Message-ID: | 17459.1453355388@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> What benefit does porting sqlsmith for inclusion in core have? I can
>> only think of costs, including those that you mentioned.
> We have automatic buildfarm coverage on many platforms. Perhaps we
> could live without that with a buildfarm module though.
I do not think we should necessarily try to include every testing tool
in the core distribution. What is important is that they be readily
available: easy to find, easy to use, documented, portable. "Same
license as the PG core code" is not on that list.
An immediately relevant example is that the buildfarm server and client
code aren't in the core distribution, and AFAIR no one has suggested
that they need to be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-21 06:03:15 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-01-21 05:47:29 | Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs) |