On Monday 23 June 2003 15:42, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Let me rephrase it:
> "Only a cohesive, organized testing effort can result in a product that
> is proven reliable."
One can never 100% prove reliability without time in the field with real-world
data, testing or no testing. I would dare say that there are numerous
reliable software packages out there in OSS-land that have never had that
sort of testing. But it really hinges on ones definition of proof, no?
Furthermore, the beta testers here in hackers are not 'end-users' per se. The
people in hackers who test the betas are very valuable as our QA team.
PostgreSQL is already proven reliable, to various degrees of reliability,
enough to where a PostgreSQL backend was approved as the new .ORG registry.
The track record continues, without mathematically rigorous and cohesive
testing. Such testing would be useful, of course, by it is not required for
our purposes.
Those who want rigorous testing can do the rigorous testing. You yourself
said that your company has a separate QA team from the development team; OK,
organize a rigorous QA team. While you won't stop releases (unless you find
showstopper bugs, like those that have been found by our wonderful hackers
testers), your input into actually testing PostgreSQL (as opposed to trying
to convince someone else to test for you) would be valuable. But you're not
going to get me to do it; I do enough testing of a varied nature already. I
do this for fun.
If you find testing fun, more power to you. :-)
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
