On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 15:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > > Let's get 9.0 out the door, hey? > > What we actually need is some testing effort. The lack of bug reports > against Hot Standby, in particular, is proof positive that no meaningful > testing is happening.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Please don't confuse things by claiming "proof positive" does, or even can, exist here. A lack of bugs usually indicates there are no bugs in the areas being tested. Which can also mean the areas being tested don't cover the full code or that tests of anything are not being performed. I raised the topic of how to increase the amount of testing earlier; my proposed solution was more betas before we go live. We just guaranteed even less testing for HS by not fixing things for Beta2. Would you like me to patch, or are you still intending to look at max_standby_delay yourself? > (If you think it means HS is bug-free, I have a > nice bridge I'd like to interest you in.) How should we proceed? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
