> Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> regress tests may as well be mainstream?  At least in terms of the
> portability requirements it will have to meet?
> 
> I'm unhappy again.  Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
> now we're going to expect an absolutely virgin contrib module to work
> everywhere in order to pass regress tests?

Ops, agreed.
And I fear that in current code there is no one GiST index
implementation -:( Should we worry about regress tests? -:)

Vadim

Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:26:03 -0800
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! 
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:

> > Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> > regress tests may as well be mainstream?  At least in terms of the
> > portability requirements it will have to meet?
> >
> > I'm unhappy again.  Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
> > now we're going to expect an absolutely virgin contrib module to work
> > everywhere in order to pass regress tests?
>
> Ops, agreed.
> And I fear that in current code there is no one GiST index
> implementation -:( Should we worry about regress tests? -:)


Yes, we had to write contrib module even  to test GiST. People,
I'm really confused after reading all of messages.
GiST is just an interface and to test any interface you need 2 sides.
In current code there is only one side. old GiST code live
untested for years. What's the problem ? It's the problem of
current regression test, mostly.
Ok. We could rewrite R-Tree to use GiST and make regression test which
will not make people nervous. But this certainly not for 7.1 and most
probable without us. Author of R-Tree could write this easily.
I read Bruce's interview and was really relaxed -
how everything is going well. Bruce, we need your opinion.


	Oleg
>
> Vadim
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:21:51 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
RE: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! 
OK. We found an old implementation of R-Tre using GiST (Pg95)
and we'll try to implement regression test using R-Tree
it's anyway will be a good test.

	Regards,

		Oleg

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
>
> > > Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> > > regress tests may as well be mainstream?  At least in terms of the
> > > portability requirements it will have to meet?
> > >
> > > I'm unhappy again.  Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
> > > now we're going to expect an absolutely virgin contrib module to work
> > > everywhere in order to pass regress tests?
> >
> > Ops, agreed.
> > And I fear that in current code there is no one GiST index
> > implementation -:( Should we worry about regress tests? -:)
>
>
> Yes, we had to write contrib module even  to test GiST. People,
> I'm really confused after reading all of messages.
> GiST is just an interface and to test any interface you need 2 sides.
> In current code there is only one side. old GiST code live
> untested for years. What's the problem ? It's the problem of
> current regression test, mostly.
> Ok. We could rewrite R-Tree to use GiST and make regression test which
> will not make people nervous. But this certainly not for 7.1 and most
> probable without us. Author of R-Tree could write this easily.
> I read Bruce's interview and was really relaxed -
> how everything is going well. Bruce, we need your opinion.
>
>
> 	Oleg
> >
> > Vadim
> >
>
> 	Regards,
> 		Oleg
> _____________________________________________________________
> Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
> Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
> Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
> phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:33:38 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
RE: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! 
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
>
> > > Um, you do realize that a contrib module that gets used as part of the
> > > regress tests may as well be mainstream?  At least in terms of the
> > > portability requirements it will have to meet?
> > >
> > > I'm unhappy again.  Bad enough we accepted a new feature during beta;
> > > now we're going to expect an absolutely virgin contrib module to work
> > > everywhere in order to pass regress tests?
> >
> > Ops, agreed.
> > And I fear that in current code there is no one GiST index
> > implementation -:( Should we worry about regress tests? -:)
>
>
> Yes, we had to write contrib module even  to test GiST. People,
> I'm really confused after reading all of messages.
> GiST is just an interface and to test any interface you need 2 sides.
> In current code there is only one side. old GiST code live
> untested for years. What's the problem ? It's the problem of
> current regression test, mostly.
> Ok. We could rewrite R-Tree to use GiST and make regression test which
> will not make people nervous. But this certainly not for 7.1 and most
> probable without us. Author of R-Tree could write this easily.

The problem is that there is inadequate amount of time to fully test the
the regression tests among all of the platforms that we support ...
therefore, we can't test GiST among all of the platforms we support ...

for instance, can you guarantee that _int.c will compile on *every*
platform that PostgreSQL supports?  That it will operate properly?  Have
you tested that?



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:07:03 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
RE: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! 
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Hannu Krosing wrote:

> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >
> > OK. We found an old implementation of R-Tre using GiST (Pg95)
> > and we'll try to implement regression test using R-Tree
> > it's anyway will be a good test.
>
> How is it different than using RD-tree for tests ?
>

No difference at all ! It's just another implemetation of R-Tree.

> Can you do it usin already compiled-in functions and modifying
>  things only at SQL level ?
>

unfortunately not ! Current postgres code has nothing connected with
GiST and this is a problem ! How to test interface code without
having two sides ? I understand we don't want to have another reason
for complaints about non-working regression test. I never got
regression test passed 100% on my Linux box with almost all versions
of PostgreSQL but I could live with that. What's wrong with
warning message if GiST test not passed ?

> Or is it just much simpler ?
>

I'm interesting to test performance of built-in R-Tree and R-Tree + GiST.

	Oleg

> ---------------------
> Hannu
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:31:15 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> What's wrong with
> warning message if GiST test not passed ?

You're being *way* too optimistic.  An output discrepancy in a test of
GIST we could live with.  But think about other scenarios:

1. GIST test coredumps on some platforms.  This corrupts other tests
(at least through the "system is starting up" failure mode), thus
masking problems that we actually care about.

2. GIST test code does not compile on some platforms, causing "make check"
to fail completely.

At this point my vote is to leave the GIST test in contrib for 7.1.
Anyone who actually cares about GIST (to be blunt: all three of you)
can run it as a separate step.  I don't want it in the standard regress
tests until 7.2, when we will have a reasonable amount of time to test
and debug the test.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:02:56 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! 
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> > >
> > > OK. We found an old implementation of R-Tre using GiST (Pg95)
> > > and we'll try to implement regression test using R-Tree
> > > it's anyway will be a good test.
> >
> > How is it different than using RD-tree for tests ?
> >
>
> No difference at all ! It's just another implemetation of R-Tree.
>
> > Can you do it usin already compiled-in functions and modifying
> >  things only at SQL level ?
> >
>
> unfortunately not ! Current postgres code has nothing connected with
> GiST and this is a problem ! How to test interface code without
> having two sides ? I understand we don't want to have another reason
> for complaints about non-working regression test. I never got
> regression test passed 100% on my Linux box with almost all versions
> of PostgreSQL but I could live with that. What's wrong with
> warning message if GiST test not passed ?

It has *nothing* to do with passing or not, it has to do with timing of
hte patches ... had they come in before we went beta, this would all have
been a no-brainer ... because they didn't, the problem arises ...

GiST changes are included ... testing of GiST changes aren't integrated
... can we *please* drop this whole thing already, as its really
detracting from getting *real* work done with very little, to no, benefit
...



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:15:47 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> > What's wrong with
> > warning message if GiST test not passed ?
>
> You're being *way* too optimistic.  An output discrepancy in a test of
> GIST we could live with.  But think about other scenarios:
>
> 1. GIST test coredumps on some platforms.  This corrupts other tests
> (at least through the "system is starting up" failure mode), thus
> masking problems that we actually care about.
>
> 2. GIST test code does not compile on some platforms, causing "make check"
> to fail completely.
>
> At this point my vote is to leave the GIST test in contrib for 7.1.
> Anyone who actually cares about GIST (to be blunt: all three of you)
> can run it as a separate step.  I don't want it in the standard regress
> tests until 7.2, when we will have a reasonable amount of time to test
> and debug the test.

Agreed ... now let's move onto more important things, cause we've spent
much too long on this as it is ...

Namely, should we bundle up a beta4 this weeekend, so that the GiST
changes are in place for further testing, or hold off for ... ?



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:17:25 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! )
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Namely, should we bundle up a beta4 this weeekend, so that the GiST
> changes are in place for further testing, or hold off for ... ?

First I'd like to finish a couple of open items I have, like fixing
the CRIT_SECTION code so that SIGTERM response will not occur when
we are holding a spinlock.  Should be able to get this stuff done in
a day or two, if I quit arguing about GIST and get back to work...

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:29:47 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! ) 
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> 
> OK. We found an old implementation of R-Tre using GiST (Pg95)
> and we'll try to implement regression test using R-Tree
> it's anyway will be a good test.

How is it different than using RD-tree for tests ?

Can you do it usin already compiled-in functions and modifying 
 things only at SQL level ?

Or is it just much simpler ?

---------------------
Hannu

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:05:25 +0000
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!
> At this point my vote is to leave the GIST test in contrib for 7.1.
> Anyone who actually cares about GIST (to be blunt: all three of you)
> can run it as a separate step.  I don't want it in the standard regress
> tests until 7.2, when we will have a reasonable amount of time to test
> and debug the test.

Agreed.  I want the GIST fixes in 7.1, but adding a new test at this
point is too risky.

The issue is that only the GIST people will be using the GIST fixes,
while adding it to the regression test will affect all users, which is
too risky at this point.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:33:03 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !!
> Agreed ... now let's move onto more important things, cause we've spent
> much too long on this as it is ...
> 
> Namely, should we bundle up a beta4 this weeekend, so that the GiST
> changes are in place for further testing, or hold off for ... ?

I would hold off.  GIST people can download the snapshot.  Others aren't
interested in GIST.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:39:05 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! )
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > Namely, should we bundle up a beta4 this weeekend, so that the GiST
> > changes are in place for further testing, or hold off for ... ?
>
> First I'd like to finish a couple of open items I have, like fixing
> the CRIT_SECTION code so that SIGTERM response will not occur when
> we are holding a spinlock.  Should be able to get this stuff done in
> a day or two, if I quit arguing about GIST and get back to work...

Okay, let's scheduale for Monday then if we can ... unless someone comes
across something major like we did with the whole beta2/beta3 release :)



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:57:29 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Beta4 for GiST? (Was: Re: AW: Re: GiST for 7.1 !! ) 