Re: Multixid hindsight design

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Multixid hindsight design
Date: 2015-06-24 16:52:14
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYXz-cPyTjCv3+7GZ3ioVifxpSKCuLfuEn+3EFq7T4Pbw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Though TED sounds nice, the way to avoid another round of on-disk bugs is by
> using a new kind of testing, not simply by moving the bits around.

I agree that we can do much better at testing than we traditionally
have done, and I think pretty much everyone in the room for the
developer unconference session on testing at PGCon was also in
agreement with that. I really like the idea of taking purpose-built
testing frameworks - like the one that Heikki created for the WAL
format changes - and polishing them to the point where they can go
into core. That's more work, of course, but very beneficial.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-06-24 16:55:25 Re: git push hook to check for outdated timestamps
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2015-06-24 16:34:44 Re: Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?)