On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:25:08PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote: Citing Tom Lane: > > I have been through crash-me in some detail, and it left a > > very bad taste in my mouth. Don't bother holding it up as an > > example of good practice. > > Every single test in their list is interesting and useful.
At least on the version I just saw there are several results with Postgres that are weird (table names > 500 chars?). Other things tested are clearly wrong (things that are = NULL, dates like '00-00-0000'); results for Postgres that are wrong probably because they are trying a weird syntax. Etc. Things like that drive the credibility of the whole thing to the floor. Maybe something like this should exist for Postgres, but it's not crash-me. Maybe the NIST compliance test is adequate. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "La conclusion que podemos sacar de esos estudios es que no podemos sacar ninguna conclusion de ellos" (Tanenbaum) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
