Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests

Getting an extensive test suite passing is certainly orders of magnitude better than having no test suite at all, but it still doesn't tell you as much as you need to know. I would absolutely never trust an LLM Postgres rewrite (in any language) in production based on "only" Postgres's test suite passing.

If you can be 100% guaranteed that there indeed is a test for every occurred bug. Sometimes maintainers are not so strict about it.

And some programmers are so good that some issues are self-explanatory and they write good code to note a thing but don't write a test, because implementing the test is more expensive.

I think this is also where the real work is. A rewrite is one thing, that you can show off with a flashy blogpost. The maintenance, for years to come, won't be of that nature yet it still requires as much work.

They aren't the bugs you get when you write it in Rust.

The kind of bugs you get are usually a function of the problem, language, implementation approach.

Every bug report, code change as a result, PR / commit message, PR comment that steers preferences, etc. is solid signal to generate future tests.

This is not true, even in principle, even for Postgres itself. You'd be right to say that it'd be hard to pass the test suite and not be robust at all to some extent. But even in Postgres, I bet that you can quite easily introduce a change that will pass the whole test suite but reduce robustness compared to the latest release (for a somewhat silly example, add a call to `exit()` on a timer that's longer than the longest duration test in the suite - that will significantly reduce robustness while still passing the entire test suite).

Even a 100% test coversge is far away from verifying all behaviour.

So no, I wouldn't judge a rewrite as being equal just because it passes the tests. That said, I don't think that means you shouldn't do it. You just have to be pragmatic about it.

"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence!"

Is managing memory safely important? YES

Is managing memory safely the solution to most of the problems? Absolutely not.

Advocating the language ignoring everything else (having as first and only argument that the code was rewritten in rust fully qualify for this case) is dogma and not engineering.

It was trained on all code the code that could be found.

Not just code written by genius programmers like Carmack and Bellard.

Given that it's average, I'd prefer a human coder above average :)

Who wants to contribute to an unmaintainable code base?

Aren't you making a strawman argument ? AFAIK this project is not made by an official PostgreSQL core developer, so the entire premise of your argument is invalid.

If the dev doesn't vet the code, it doesn't matter how good quality a dev they would be if they wrote the code - they didn't. Sure, the dev would probably drive the initial architecture discussion better and some people are using AI in small batches with tests and vetting everything, but some previously great devs are throwing in PRs that touch hundreds of files at once with one commit.

A lot of people I previously considered great developers have become people I would not recommend for a job in the past 2-3 years.

> If you have a black box that spits out code, and you are unable to distinguish the quality between a top tier dev and an AI inside the black box, then the distinction is unnecessary.

Sure, but this is just begging the question. If nobody could tell, the term 'slop' wouldn't have become so popular.

Everyone is standing on the shoulders of those which came before. If LLMs allow us to combine the incredible decades of effort and knowledge and experiences that's gone into building something as great as Postgres, and take that and combine the experience and philosophy that has led to the creation of a language that potentially provides tangible benefits, for, for far less human time and effort that is surely something that should be celebrated as incredible.

For my machine translation of SQLite to Go I added this to the README as to licencing:

Most of the code here is machine translated using wasm2go. As such, the original authors retain copyright and the original licenses remain in effect. Everything else is licensed under MIT-0.

The translator (wasm2go) has a licence chosen by, and a copyright notice from, me. Makes no sense for the translated code.