On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:09:16PM -0400, David Steele wrote: > On 5/31/15 11:49 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:51:04PM -0400, David Steele wrote: > >> Sure - I can write code to do that. But then why release a beta at all? > > > > It's largely for the benefit of folks planning manual, or otherwise > > high-cost, > > testing. If you budget for just one big test per year, make it a test of > > beta1. For inexpensive testing, you may as well ignore beta and test git > > master daily or weekly. > > I've gotten to the point of (relatively) high-cost coding/testing. The > removal of checkpoint_segments and pause_on_recovery are leading to > refactoring of not only the regressions tests but the actual backup > code. 9.5 and 8.3 are the only versions that require exceptions in the > code base. > > I've already done basic testing against 9.5 by disabling certain tests. > Now I'm at the point where I need to start modifying code to take new > 9.5 features/changes into account and make sure the regression tests > work for 8.3-9.5 with the fewest number of exceptions possible.
Release of beta1 is the cue for that sort of work. > From the perspective of backup/restore testing, 9.5 has the most changes > since 9.0. I'd like to know that the API at least is stable before > investing the time in new development. Its API will be as good as pgsql-hackers could make it; beta1 is also a call for help discovering API problems we overlooked. Subsequent API changes are usually reactions to beta test reports. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
