Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A644F6350D7 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 07:41:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95827-02 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 07:41:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC705634EAE for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 07:41:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 May 2009 10:41:14 -0000 Received: from fsgw.f-secure.com (EHLO fsopti579.localnet) [193.110.108.33] by mail.gmx.net (mp007) with SMTP; 29 May 2009 12:41:14 +0200 X-Authenticated: #495269 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/+rm4vsUX+DiQ2FPg3EQMnhSZsRZqc6CBmGHz8KX d/qs9fT/A0AlUc From: Peter Eisentraut To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:41:12 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.26-2-686; KDE/4.2.2; i686; ; ) Cc: Stephen Frost , Tom Lane , Greg Smith , Robert Haas , Markus Wanner , Andrew Dunstan , Aidan Van Dyk , Heikki Linnakangas , Magnus Hagander References: <20090528020909.GQ15213@yugib.highrise.ca> <11894.1243529112@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20090528170338.GY8123@tamriel.snowman.net> In-Reply-To: <20090528170338.GY8123@tamriel.snowman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905291341.12849.peter_e@gmx.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.6899999999999999 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.134 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200905/1379 X-Sequence-Number: 138921 On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:03:38 Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Right. Shall we try to spec out exactly what our conversion > > requirements are? Here's a shot: > > [...] > > > Comments? Other considerations? > > Certainly sounds reasonable to me. I'd be really suprised if that's > really all that hard to accomplish. I'd be happy to help with some > testing too if we feel that the current git repo is in reasonable shape > to do that testing against (or someone has another). Sounds like writing a comprehensive test suite against Tom's spec would be the first step. And then this test suite can be run against various conversion tools and configurations thereof.