I feel like we need to heavily differentiate between a rewrite and an AI rewrite.
It’s just a build step now.
Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
11–20 of 756 posts
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#12I feel like we need to heavily differentiate between a rewrite and an AI rewrite.
It is more and more the future. No human would want to rewrite one technology to another because it is too marginal a gain. AI on the other hand does not give a shit.
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#13Does it support the extension ecosystem? Or would extensions need to be rewritten as well?
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#14I start to see a lot of these re-writes that depend on tests to state that its working. But the things that make software like Postgres and SQLite reliable are not mostly the test, but the real world production scars. That's where the reliability comes from, years and years of running in production.
> not mostly the test, but the real world production scars
Most extensive test suites are exactly production scars: every time you have a bug or a regression, you write a test that confirms correct behaviour.
SQLite is a good example to bring up because its extensive closed-source tests are what’s often cited as being what keeps people from forking it. (Turso did it, though, but it takes a company to deliver some guarantee of equivalent diligence.)
And yes, years and years of running.
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#15I start to see a lot of these re-writes that depend on tests to state that its working. But the things that make software like Postgres and SQLite reliable are not mostly the test, but the real world production scars. That's where the reliability comes from, years and years of running in production.
That's precisely what a regression test suite is for. There is a bug, you fix the bug, you add a regression test. So if the test suite is well maintained these real world production scars are reflected in the tests.
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#16I start to see a lot of these re-writes that depend on tests to state that its working. But the things that make software like Postgres and SQLite reliable are not mostly the test, but the real world production scars. That's where the reliability comes from, years and years of running in production.
The test suite is the result of these years of years of running in production. Every time you fix a bug, you add a non-regression test to ensure you don’t break it again.
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#17I start to see a lot of these re-writes that depend on tests to state that its working. But the things that make software like Postgres and SQLite reliable are not mostly the test, but the real world production scars. That's where the reliability comes from, years and years of running in production.
In a project like PostgreSQL, those scars are reflected in unit tests demonstrating that they’re fixed. It’d be hard to pass its test suite and not be as robust as the original.
Sure but these scars/tests are from the original implementation. Just because it doesn't have issues there doesn't mean it didn't bring its own set of issues
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#18I start to see a lot of these re-writes that depend on tests to state that its working. But the things that make software like Postgres and SQLite reliable are not mostly the test, but the real world production scars. That's where the reliability comes from, years and years of running in production.
Wait - does the AI rewrite the tests too? If so, lol.
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#19[dead]
Re: Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests
#20Woah! AGPL? That's interesting. I think Postgres has shown an open source SQL server didn't need a copy-left license to develop sustainably, so I'm not entirely aure about that, but I do like the license in general.
When the software consists entirely of ~$1000 worth of Claude credits and ~40 hours of developer time prompting and curating it, literally what does it matter what license the resulting 100k LoC artifact is provided under?
Copyleft and the whole software licensing ecosystem only matter when producing that software actually requires serious human effort and dedication.