Re: Re: Checkpointer split has broken things dramatically (was Re: DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation)

Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au> writes:
> On 07/18/2012 08:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not sure if we need a whole "farm", but certainly having at least one
>> machine testing this sort of stuff on a regular basis would make me feel
>> a lot better.

> OK. That's something I can actually be useful for.

> My current qemu/kvm test harness control code is in Python since that's 
> what all the other tooling for the project I was using it for is in. Is 
> it likely to be useful for me to adapt that code for use for a Pg 
> crash-test harness, or will you need a particular tool/language to be 
> used? If so, which/what? I'll do pretty much anything except Perl. I'll 
> have a result for you more quickly working in Python, though I'm happy 
> enough to write it in C (or Java, but I'm guessing that won't get any 
> enthusiasm around here).

If we were talking about code that was going to end up in the PG
distribution, I'd kind of want it to be in C or Perl, just to keep down
the number of languages we're depending on.  However, it's not obvious
that a tool like this would ever go into our distribution.  I'd suggest
working with what you're comfortable with, and we can worry about
translation when and if there's a reason to.

			regards, tom lane