Hi, On 2026-09-08 14:32:31 -0500, Zsolt Parragi wrote: > This seem to be 0002 from a patchset I submitted yesterday[1]. > > > Perhaps a stupid question, but: Who cares? > > My reasoning for this was that the other test module that has the same > issue (test_extensible) states that it is an example for extension > developers: > > This module can be used as a template for developers willing to develop > their own extensions. "Writing a Custom Scan Provider" covers the > documentation for custom scans.
> So I thought a small fix is a good improvement there, and then > test_bms_membership was an easy follow up because it's the same thing. We are drowning in patches, with actual (not AI) review and committer bandwidth being the bottleneck. I think showing that we accept patches for making test modules not crash when held in bogus ways is a good way to make that even worse. I think using these modules as templates for real extensions tends to be a not great idea. I turns out test code, which tends to lean towards testing edge cases etc, is rarely nice, easy to understand, code. Greetings, Andres Freund
