On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, Alvaro!
I see your point. Yes, I'll try to understand the test cases to be able to judge the results by myself. What I was worried about was some settings might break the correctness and causes unexpected problem in the product run. So I choose to first test a bit by myself instead of directly applying what I want. You know, there's a gap between developers assumptions and users intentions.
Tianyin Xu wrote:Please don't top-post.
> Ok, I agree that "2147483647" is not a reasonable setting. But what's the
> definition of "reasonable"? I just want to study the impact of the setting
> so I test the big number first.
Those values are not wrong. They just don't match what our current
testing framework expects. Whether the generated plans are sensible or
not is entirely another question; the queries should still return the
same resultsets. Ordering of tuples within the resultset shouldn't
matter, but the test framework is not smart enough to compare them
that way.
Thanks, Alvaro!
I see your point. Yes, I'll try to understand the test cases to be able to judge the results by myself. What I was worried about was some settings might break the correctness and causes unexpected problem in the product run. So I choose to first test a bit by myself instead of directly applying what I want. You know, there's a gap between developers assumptions and users intentions.
> When you give users the flexibility of configurations, you cannot say allSure.
> the values mismatching with your expectations are not allowed. In fact the
> system allowed such settings.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Tianyin XU,
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~tixu/
