"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It was done and we fixed a couple of bugs based on it (the
>> one I can think of offhand had to do with semantics of
>> aggregate functions in sub-selects). I don't think there's
>> anything more to be learned there.
> It is reassuring to know that
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 2:35 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Manfred Koizar; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: TESTING (was: RE: [HACKERS] More vacuum.c refactoring )
>
>
> "Dann Co
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> --- and no I have zero confidence that passing the regression
>> tests proves anything, because all those prior bugs passed
>> the regression tests.
> Then why didn't those bugs get added to the regression?
Because there wasn't any reasonable way to
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 2:19 PM
> To: Manfred Koizar
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More vacuum.c refactoring
>
>
> Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > T
