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.
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.
This space of things is astronomically larger than the space of things expressly covered by any test suite.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." -Edsger W. Dijkstra
Fable's napkin estimate of the effort required to produce a passable reference semantics for Postgres, which would involve novel discoveries in denotational semantics of concurrent transactions and so on, might be in the ballpark of 30–60 years of PhD level work.
So realistically I think the only way to validate a Postgres implementation involves differential testing, fuzzing, acceptance test suites, etc. And still you'll have bugs that need to be hammered out the good old fashioned way.
There are reasonable arguments against language ports, but this is not one. You're making an argument against code changing at all ever.
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.
While not an exact fit of an analogy, those tests patch what was a problem with Postgres in the wild. What it doesn't cover are the things that worked in Postgres without tests, but may fail in port and go undetected.
1. Every test that is written is another use case that wasn't tested before. 100% test coverage is often impractical, but the more tests you have the more of the code you can be confident about.
2. Every test you add is another regression that can't happen in the future; if you test the index rebuilding code and validate the output then you know that you aren't going to make a change that breaks the index rebuilding code. If you have a legitimate change you update the tests, but if you're not expecting the change then you know there's a bug somewhere.
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.
You don't write a test (just) to verify that your change fixed the issue, but to ensure it doesn't regress in the future after an unrelated refactor.
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.
But, there are also levels, in terms of quality and human code review, when dealing with rewrites. New bugs can be introduced or there can be style issues, that can take time to fully reveal themselves, and particularly if the person or people involved are not familiar with the other language.