| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: psql & regression (was: Error in new psql) |
| Date: | 1999-12-11 03:40:52 |
| Message-ID: | 199912110340.WAA14726@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> And who can guarantee that this kind of flaw cannot happen
> anywhere else? There are many, very old regression tests.
> Some of them go back to the roots, Postgres 4.2, and I'm not
> sure anyone ever looked at the expected results lately, if
> they are really what SHOULD be expected. The tenk data for
> example is something where even I don't know where it was
> coming from, and I already joined the Postgres community with
> release 4.2 back in 1994.
Thomas is the regression man, and has checked the output to see that
it was expected in the past. I assume he will regenerate it soon.
A good point is that he can use the old psql to see any changes/breakage
in the backend code, but can _not_ use the new psql to check because the
output is different. That is a good point, and I think the one Jan was
making.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-12-11 03:58:09 | Re: psql & regression (was: Error in new psql) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-12-11 03:37:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Error in new psql |