| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 05:30:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQqufu3YRg7Y90oFKGR0YsXnnpuGnY+5frCtbOX9PgCjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Another tool that we had better IMO put some efforts in porting
> into core is sqlsmith, which would actually be a complete rewrite
> because the upstream code is under GPL license and depends on libpqxx.
Then Andreas Seltenreich better get a commit bit. I've seen him turn
around changes in sqlsmith to test new areas of Postgres in a couple
of days. That's a big reason why he has been so effective.
What benefit does porting sqlsmith for inclusion in core have? I can
only think of costs, including those that you mentioned.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-01-21 05:37:28 | Re: Releasing in September |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-21 05:27:02 | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |