Re: Two weeks to feature freeze

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Hermit Hacker [mailto:scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 5:26 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Jan Wieck; scott.marlowe; Bruce Momjian; Tom Lane; Jason
> Earl; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jan Wieck [mailto:JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:30 PM
> > > To: Dann Corbit
> > > Cc: scott.marlowe; Bruce Momjian; Tom Lane; Jason Earl;
> > > PostgreSQL-development
> > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze
> > [snip]
> > > I personally think you don't actually ever did any
> software testing
> > > yourself. You are not really talking from experience, are you? So
> > > please, show me what you have now, or get one more plus on my
> > > minus-list.
> >
> > I have already posted enough information to show my qualitications.
> >
> > Whether I am qualified or not is irrelevant to whether the argument
> > has merit or not.
> >
> > I have raised what I consider to be an important issue.
>
> You have raised a point that you are not prepared to do
> anything about though

I did something about it. I raised the issue.
Is it really so that whoever it is that raises a question is also the
one who must fix the issue raised?
A strange model indeed.

> ... nobody disagrees with you about
> adding more testing,

Actually some do, but that's neither here nor there.

> but if you aren't willing to do the
> work, why should anyone else be?

Perhaps they have the time and care about the result.

> Someone has to spearhead it
> ... you seem to be passionate about seeing it happen, but
> don't care enough to do anything about it ...

Don't care and won't do are not the same thing.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:

> I did something about it. I raised the issue.
> Is it really so that whoever it is that raises a question is also the
> one who must fix the issue raised?
> A strange model indeed.

Its worked for us ...

Wait, I know what should make you happy ... it won't get anytihng done,
but ...

Bruce, can you add "* Improve Testing" to the TODO list

> > Someone has to spearhead it
> > ... you seem to be passionate about seeing it happen, but
> > don't care enough to do anything about it ...
>
> Don't care and won't do are not the same thing.

Well, actually, they are ... if someone doesn't care, they aren't going to
do, are they?

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> > I did something about it. I raised the issue.
> > Is it really so that whoever it is that raises a question is also the
> > one who must fix the issue raised?
> > A strange model indeed.
>
> Its worked for us ...
>
> Wait, I know what should make you happy ... it won't get anytihng done,
> but ...
>
> Bruce, can you add "* Improve Testing" to the TODO list

That seems too vague for TODO. We might as well add "Make PostgreSQL
faster". :-)

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
> >
> > > I did something about it. I raised the issue.
> > > Is it really so that whoever it is that raises a question is also the
> > > one who must fix the issue raised?
> > > A strange model indeed.
> >
> > Its worked for us ...
> >
> > Wait, I know what should make you happy ... it won't get anytihng done,
> > but ...
> >
> > Bruce, can you add "* Improve Testing" to the TODO list
>
> That seems too vague for TODO. We might as well add "Make PostgreSQL
> faster". :-)

'K, can you add that one too? :)

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>> I did something about it. I raised the issue.
>> Is it really so that whoever it is that raises a question is also the
>> one who must fix the issue raised?
>> A strange model indeed.
>
> Its worked for us ...

Sorry Marc, but that ain't entirely true.

There have been a good number of examples where the one who raised an
issue isn't just of the format to implement it. So someone else jumped
in and did it instead. I don't need to pick any particular samples, you
know that it happened a few times.

And don't get the wrong picture. Yes, Dann is "just talking" here on the
testing methodology front. But as much as it looks like we two hate each
other on this thread, we actually start working together on a totally
different issue. And to say the least, I like his version better than
Katie's ... 'nuff said.

Jan

>
> Wait, I know what should make you happy ... it won't get anytihng done,
> but ...
>
> Bruce, can you add "* Improve Testing" to the TODO list
>
>> > Someone has to spearhead it
>> > ... you seem to be passionate about seeing it happen, but
>> > don't care enough to do anything about it ...
>>
>> Don't care and won't do are not the same thing.
>
> Well, actually, they are ... if someone doesn't care, they aren't going to
> do, are they?

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
>> >
>> > > I did something about it. I raised the issue.
>> > > Is it really so that whoever it is that raises a question is also the
>> > > one who must fix the issue raised?
>> > > A strange model indeed.
>> >
>> > Its worked for us ...
>> >
>> > Wait, I know what should make you happy ... it won't get anytihng done,
>> > but ...
>> >
>> > Bruce, can you add "* Improve Testing" to the TODO list
>>
>> That seems too vague for TODO. We might as well add "Make PostgreSQL
>> faster". :-)
>
> 'K, can you add that one too? :)

Make his life easier:

Replace the entire TODO with "Make PostgreSQL better"

That pretty much summs it up, no?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I did something about it. I raised the issue.
> >> > > Is it really so that whoever it is that raises a question is also the
> >> > > one who must fix the issue raised?
> >> > > A strange model indeed.
> >> >
> >> > Its worked for us ...
> >> >
> >> > Wait, I know what should make you happy ... it won't get anytihng done,
> >> > but ...
> >> >
> >> > Bruce, can you add "* Improve Testing" to the TODO list
> >>
> >> That seems too vague for TODO. We might as well add "Make PostgreSQL
> >> faster". :-)
> >
> > 'K, can you add that one too? :)
>
> Make his life easier:
>
> Replace the entire TODO with "Make PostgreSQL better"
>
> That pretty much summs it up, no?

Oh, I like that ... definitely leaves it open to the interpretation of the
reader as to what would make it better :)

> > That seems too vague for TODO. We might as well add "Make PostgreSQL
> > faster". :-)
> 'K, can you add that one too? :)

How about "* Remove all bugs from the source". Can you put that in TODO ?

:-)

--
Kaare Rasmussen --Linux, spil,-- Tlf: 3816 2582
Kaki Data tshirts, merchandize Fax: 3816 2501
Howitzvej 75 Åben 12.00-18.00 Email: kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk
2000 Frederiksberg Lørdag 12.00-16.00 Web: www.suse.dk

Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
>> > That seems too vague for TODO. We might as well add "Make PostgreSQL
>> > faster". :-)
>> 'K, can you add that one too? :)
>
> How about "* Remove all bugs from the source". Can you put that in TODO ?
>
> :-)
>

Change that into "* Remove bugs from source code" and get a patent on
it. Should be a nobrainer (as in those guy's have no brains) considering
that NetFlix even got a patent on DVD subscription rentals:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/1458223&mode=flat&tid=155&tid=99

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

Jan Wieck wrote:

>
> Change that into "* Remove bugs from source code" and get a patent on
> it. Should be a nobrainer (as in those guy's have no brains)
> considering that NetFlix even got a patent on DVD subscription rentals:
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/1458223&mode=flat&tid=155&tid=99

I'm applying for a patent on breathing now.
The trick I found is reversing the direction of airflow in a regular way.

The algorithm seems apparently simple, but it really makes the deal:

Step 1.
If your lungs are empty, let air flow into them through some air intake.
This airflow might be ducted by some bronchial or additional tubing.

Step 2 (optional)
As soon as there's enough air in the lungs, you may decide to hold it
there for a while. Some time limits might apply, please consult some
specialist for details.

Step 3
Press the air out of the lungs, using some muscles or externally applied
force on the chest. The air will eventually escape through some body
opening. Another patent I'll be applying for covers the use of nostrils
for this purpose.

Step 4
Restart the cycle at step 1.

Regards and don't dare to try this without royalty fees!

Andreas

On 25 Jun 2003 at 14:50, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Change that into "* Remove bugs from source code" and get a patent on
> > it. Should be a nobrainer (as in those guy's have no brains)
> > considering that NetFlix even got a patent on DVD subscription rentals:
> >
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/1458223&mode=flat&tid=155&tid=99
>
> I'm applying for a patent on breathing now.
> The trick I found is reversing the direction of airflow in a regular way.
>
> The algorithm seems apparently simple, but it really makes the deal:
>
> Step 1.
> If your lungs are empty, let air flow into them through some air intake.
> This airflow might be ducted by some bronchial or additional tubing.
>
> Step 2 (optional)
> As soon as there's enough air in the lungs, you may decide to hold it
> there for a while. Some time limits might apply, please consult some
> specialist for details.
>
> Step 3
> Press the air out of the lungs, using some muscles or externally applied
> force on the chest. The air will eventually escape through some body
> opening. Another patent I'll be applying for covers the use of nostrils
> for this purpose.
>
> Step 4
> Restart the cycle at step 1.
>
>
> Regards and don't dare to try this without royalty fees!

Oops... I challenge it for prior art..:-)

Bye
Shridhar

--
Gomme's Laws: (1) A backscratcher will always find new itches. (2) Time
accelerates. (3) The weather at home improves as soon as you go away.

> Change that into "* Remove bugs from source code" and get a patent on
> it. Should be a nobrainer (as in those guy's have no brains) considering
> that NetFlix even got a patent on DVD subscription rentals:

And for all the nice royalty money*, think about what can be done to
PostgreSQL. Maybe even a test suite :-)

* Or maybe the best step is to sue IBM or Microsoft. Then again, maybe not. Do
they care about bug removal? ;-)

--
Kaare Rasmussen --Linux, spil,-- Tlf: 3816 2582
Kaki Data tshirts, merchandize Fax: 3816 2501
Howitzvej 75 Åben 12.00-18.00 Email: kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk
2000 Frederiksberg Lørdag 12.00-16.00 Web: www.suse.dk

Jan,

> There have been a good number of examples where the one who raised an
> issue isn't just of the format to implement it. So someone else jumped
> in and did it instead. I don't need to pick any particular samples, you
> know that it happened a few times.

Sure. But in those cases, the fix/feature was something that the consensus on
-Hackers agreed needed to be done, someday. Putting those items on the TODO
was an acknowledgement of that decision, even though they won't be
implemented until we aquire more contributors. As an example, the various
PL/pgSQL enhancements which Patrick and I pushed onto the TODO list, which
are still features in search of a programmer.

That took, as I recall, about a month of lobbying on this list, which
required me to prove a) how our current PL/pgSQL was weak, and b) how the
improvements would benefit the project overall, and c) how many people were
interested in the improvements.

There are 3 problems with Dann's proposal that have caused it to be shot down
in flames instead of being put on the TODO list:
1) Most people on this list ... particularly, most contributors ... do not
agree with Dann's proposal. This is in no little part due to Dann's lack of
material evidence for his case.
2) Dann has a particularly abrasive and insulting communication style that
hasn't helped his case any, either.
3) Dann is proposing not just a feature but sweeping changes to the way our
commmunity works, despite having been a member of this community for about 3
weeks total.

As such, this discussion is an example of the "Open Source Process" (tm)
working correctly. Someone brought up a proposal, it was challenged, they
were not able to defend the proposal, and it was voted down.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> 3) Dann is proposing not just a feature but sweeping changes to the way our
> commmunity works, despite having been a member of this community for about 3
> weeks total.

In Dann's defense, I didn't think I heard him proposing that we get rid
of our existing testing methods, but rather that we see if we can't
supplement them with something more formal. This strikes me as a
perfectly reasonable proposal. However, he hasn't succeeded in
convincing anyone else to put their time into it (for reasons that
are also perfectly reasonable, namely that we find that our existing
methods do pretty well, and we don't have the manpower to create a large
formal testing structure ... even if we thought it would repay the effort,
which many of us doubt). So it's his itch to scratch, or not.

Unless there's something more profitable to be said on the subject,
could we drop the thread?

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > 3) Dann is proposing not just a feature but sweeping changes to the way our
> > commmunity works, despite having been a member of this community for about 3
> > weeks total.
>
> In Dann's defense, I didn't think I heard him proposing that we get rid
> of our existing testing methods, but rather that we see if we can't
> supplement them with something more formal. This strikes me as a
> perfectly reasonable proposal. However, he hasn't succeeded in
> convincing anyone else to put their time into it (for reasons that
> are also perfectly reasonable, namely that we find that our existing
> methods do pretty well, and we don't have the manpower to create a large
> formal testing structure ... even if we thought it would repay the effort,
> which many of us doubt). So it's his itch to scratch, or not.
>
> Unless there's something more profitable to be said on the subject,
> could we drop the thread?

One thing that came out of the thread is the fact that many people who
use PostgreSQL do testing in many different ways, and that much of the
stability of PostgreSQL can be attributed to that.

It occurs to me that there may be (perhaps) a lot of duplication of
effort there that could be reduced a bit.

So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and
data they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
others through that mechanism.

And any tests which prove to be particularly useful could make their
way into the PG distribution if people here wish.

Of course, like anything else this could be a bad (or perhaps redundant)
idea. :-)

--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com

Kevin,

> So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
> have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and
> data they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
> separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
> the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
> are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
> others through that mechanism.

+1

-Josh

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:

> On 25 Jun 2003 at 14:50, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > Change that into "* Remove bugs from source code" and get a patent on
> > > it. Should be a nobrainer (as in those guy's have no brains)
> > > considering that NetFlix even got a patent on DVD subscription rentals:
> > >
> > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/1458223&mode=flat&tid=155&tid=99
> >
> > I'm applying for a patent on breathing now.
> > The trick I found is reversing the direction of airflow in a regular way.
> >
> > The algorithm seems apparently simple, but it really makes the deal:
> >
> > Step 1.
> > If your lungs are empty, let air flow into them through some air intake.
> > This airflow might be ducted by some bronchial or additional tubing.
> >
> > Step 2 (optional)
> > As soon as there's enough air in the lungs, you may decide to hold it
> > there for a while. Some time limits might apply, please consult some
> > specialist for details.
> >
> > Step 3
> > Press the air out of the lungs, using some muscles or externally applied
> > force on the chest. The air will eventually escape through some body
> > opening. Another patent I'll be applying for covers the use of nostrils
> > for this purpose.
> >
> > Step 4
> > Restart the cycle at step 1.
> >
> >
> > Regards and don't dare to try this without royalty fees!
>
> Oops... I challenge it for prior art..:-)

Why, are you older then he is? I think that is about the only way that
'prior art' would apply here, no? :)

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:

> So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
> have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and data
> they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
> separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
> the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
> are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
> others through that mechanism.
>
> And any tests which prove to be particularly useful could make their way
> into the PG distribution if people here wish.
>
> Of course, like anything else this could be a bad (or perhaps redundant)
> idea. :-)

It doesn't sound like a bad idea ... but, it pretty much comes down to the
original thread: are you willing to step up and maintain such a project?

Doesn't matter, this entire approach has a fundamental flaw. If the
lungs are "empty" ... that means that the guy has an open thorax, the
lungs are collapsed, and you'll probably have problems catching his
attention to make your claim.

Jan

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jun 2003 at 14:50, Andreas Pflug wrote:
>> > Jan Wieck wrote:
>> > > Change that into "* Remove bugs from source code" and get a patent on
>> > > it. Should be a nobrainer (as in those guy's have no brains)
>> > > considering that NetFlix even got a patent on DVD subscription rentals:
>> > >
>> > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/1458223&mode=flat&tid=155&tid=99
>> >
>> > I'm applying for a patent on breathing now.
>> > The trick I found is reversing the direction of airflow in a regular way.
>> >
>> > The algorithm seems apparently simple, but it really makes the deal:
>> >
>> > Step 1.
>> > If your lungs are empty, let air flow into them through some air intake.
>> > This airflow might be ducted by some bronchial or additional tubing.
>> >
>> > Step 2 (optional)
>> > As soon as there's enough air in the lungs, you may decide to hold it
>> > there for a while. Some time limits might apply, please consult some
>> > specialist for details.
>> >
>> > Step 3
>> > Press the air out of the lungs, using some muscles or externally applied
>> > force on the chest. The air will eventually escape through some body
>> > opening. Another patent I'll be applying for covers the use of nostrils
>> > for this purpose.
>> >
>> > Step 4
>> > Restart the cycle at step 1.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards and don't dare to try this without royalty fees!
>>
>> Oops... I challenge it for prior art..:-)
>
> Why, are you older then he is? I think that is about the only way that
> 'prior art' would apply here, no? :)
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> > So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
> > have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and data
> > they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
> > separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
> > the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
> > are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
> > others through that mechanism.
> >
> > And any tests which prove to be particularly useful could make their way
> > into the PG distribution if people here wish.
> >
> > Of course, like anything else this could be a bad (or perhaps redundant)
> > idea. :-)
>
> It doesn't sound like a bad idea ... but, it pretty much comes down to the
> original thread: are you willing to step up and maintain such a project?

Yes, I am ("how hard can it be?", he asks himself, knowing all the
while that it's a really bad idea to be asking that question. :-).
But I haven't the faintest idea of how or where to even start, so
pointers would be appreciated.

--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
> >
> > > So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
> > > have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and data
> > > they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
> > > separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
> > > the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
> > > are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
> > > others through that mechanism.
> > >
> > > And any tests which prove to be particularly useful could make their way
> > > into the PG distribution if people here wish.
> > >
> > > Of course, like anything else this could be a bad (or perhaps redundant)
> > > idea. :-)
> >
> > It doesn't sound like a bad idea ... but, it pretty much comes down to the
> > original thread: are you willing to step up and maintain such a project?
>
> Yes, I am ("how hard can it be?", he asks himself, knowing all the
> while that it's a really bad idea to be asking that question. :-).
> But I haven't the faintest idea of how or where to even start, so
> pointers would be appreciated.

Create/modify a script to automate some kind of download/sync, test and
send failure results somewhere. Make it extensible, so that other tests
can be easily added -- preferable in a self contained way. It should grow
from there.

Gavin

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:

> > It doesn't sound like a bad idea ... but, it pretty much comes down to the
> > original thread: are you willing to step up and maintain such a project?
>
> Yes, I am ("how hard can it be?", he asks himself, knowing all the
> while that it's a really bad idea to be asking that question. :-).
> But I haven't the faintest idea of how or where to even start, so
> pointers would be appreciated.

Which, of course, is always the fun part ...

I believe Thomas is going to be starting to work on test scripts, so you
might want to co-ordinate with him ...

See my recent commit of src/tools/pgtest. It might be a good start.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> > The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > > So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
> > > > have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and data
> > > > they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
> > > > separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
> > > > the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
> > > > are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
> > > > others through that mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > And any tests which prove to be particularly useful could make their way
> > > > into the PG distribution if people here wish.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, like anything else this could be a bad (or perhaps redundant)
> > > > idea. :-)
> > >
> > > It doesn't sound like a bad idea ... but, it pretty much comes down to the
> > > original thread: are you willing to step up and maintain such a project?
> >
> > Yes, I am ("how hard can it be?", he asks himself, knowing all the
> > while that it's a really bad idea to be asking that question. :-).
> > But I haven't the faintest idea of how or where to even start, so
> > pointers would be appreciated.
>
> Create/modify a script to automate some kind of download/sync, test and
> send failure results somewhere. Make it extensible, so that other tests
> can be easily added -- preferable in a self contained way. It should grow
> from there.
>
> Gavin
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>
> See my recent commit of src/tools/pgtest. It might be a good start.

Yes this is a good start. This is a little concerning though:

pg_ctl stop
rm -rf "$PGDATA"

Perhaps a warning is warranted (ie, $PGDATA shouldn't point to your
production data cluster)?

On another point, I have some ideas for Kevin and others interested in
automated testing. Dann, Tom and others have voiced concern about the
nature of testing itself: progammers testing for bugs they've solved; the
difficulty/impossibility of testing for conditions you are unaware of,
etc.

ISTM that most of the bugs which aren't caught by the programmer, peer
review and regresion test are revealed by users throwing data into a new
version or a version different to that they are running in production and
then running their existing code against it. That is, bugs are revealed by
usage which developers did not foresee or did not think to test.

So, if we had an automated testing framework which was extensible,
postgres users could create testing scripts which simultate their
application, with their application data (real or created specifically
for the test). The win for users is that they can have their data/SQL
tested on a variety of platforms, on new versions of postgres and the win
for developers/testers is exposure of the code to unexpected usage.

There will need to be checks and balances involved (select 1; is a pretty
ordinary test), size limits/configurable thresholds for run times, and a
repository of test results.

Naturally, managing this could be quite time consuming if data formats
change etc. but if people are keen...

Gavin

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
> >
> > > The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
> > > > > have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and data
> > > > > they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
> > > > > separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
> > > > > the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
> > > > > are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
> > > > > others through that mechanism.
> > > > >
> > > > > And any tests which prove to be particularly useful could make their way
> > > > > into the PG distribution if people here wish.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, like anything else this could be a bad (or perhaps redundant)
> > > > > idea. :-)
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't sound like a bad idea ... but, it pretty much comes down to the
> > > > original thread: are you willing to step up and maintain such a project?
> > >
> > > Yes, I am ("how hard can it be?", he asks himself, knowing all the
> > > while that it's a really bad idea to be asking that question. :-).
> > > But I haven't the faintest idea of how or where to even start, so
> > > pointers would be appreciated.
> >
> > Create/modify a script to automate some kind of download/sync, test and
> > send failure results somewhere. Make it extensible, so that other tests
> > can be easily added -- preferable in a self contained way. It should grow
> > from there.
> >
> > Gavin
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
> >
>
>

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> See my recent commit of src/tools/pgtest. It might be a good start.

I was wondering if some existing framework, like from the Apache Xalan
package, would be a better point to start from? I hate to say it, Bruce,
but you try to reinvent the wheel by starting with a sled.

Jan

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
>>
>> > The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who
>> > > > have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and data
>> > > > they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be
>> > > > separate from the main PG distribution and would thus have no impact on
>> > > > the build process or anything like that. But at the same time, if there
>> > > > are any ideas on testing that people have had, they could be shared with
>> > > > others through that mechanism.
>> > > >
>> > > > And any tests which prove to be particularly useful could make their way
>> > > > into the PG distribution if people here wish.
>> > > >
>> > > > Of course, like anything else this could be a bad (or perhaps redundant)
>> > > > idea. :-)
>> > >
>> > > It doesn't sound like a bad idea ... but, it pretty much comes down to the
>> > > original thread: are you willing to step up and maintain such a project?
>> >
>> > Yes, I am ("how hard can it be?", he asks himself, knowing all the
>> > while that it's a really bad idea to be asking that question. :-).
>> > But I haven't the faintest idea of how or where to even start, so
>> > pointers would be appreciated.
>>
>> Create/modify a script to automate some kind of download/sync, test and
>> send failure results somewhere. Make it extensible, so that other tests
>> can be easily added -- preferable in a self contained way. It should grow
>> from there.
>>
>> Gavin
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>>
>

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > See my recent commit of src/tools/pgtest. It might be a good start.
>
> I was wondering if some existing framework, like from the Apache Xalan
> package, would be a better point to start from? I hate to say it, Bruce,
> but you try to reinvent the wheel by starting with a sled.

Hey, I take offence at that ... up here in Canada, that sled is faster,
dontcha know? especially if we throw those dogs in front of them :)