Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want > >> it to show that it's now safe. The situation is not different than it > >> was before, except that we can now actually point to a specific bug that > >> did exist, whereas the original concern was just an unfocused one that > >> the code path hadn't been adequately exercised. That concern is now > >> even more pressing than it was. > > > I am not sure how you prove the non-existance of a bug. Ideas? > > What I'm looking for is some concentrated testing. The fact that some > people once in a while SIGTERM a backend doesn't give me any confidence > in it.
OK, here is an opportunity for someone to run tests to get this into 8.2. The code already exists in CVS, but we need testing to enable it. I would think running a huge workload and killing it over and over again would be a good test. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
