At Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:45:52 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:05 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Mmmm. That looks like meaning that we don't intend to support the > > Dilip's case, and means that we support the use of > > archive-command-copies-only-other-than-wal-segments? > > Actually, I think Dilip's case ought to be supported, but I also think > that somebody else might disagree, so it's better for me if the test > doesn't need to rely on it.
Understood. > > Agreed. I often annoyed by a long-lasting TAP script when I wanted to > > do one of the test items in it. However, I was not sure which is our > > policy here, consolidating all related tests into one script or having > > separate scripts containing tests up to a "certain" number or a set of > > tests that would take a certain time, or limiting by number the of > > lines. I thought that we are on the first way as I have told several > > times to put new tests into an existing script. > > Different people might have different opinions about this, but my > opinion is that when it's possible to combine the test cases in a way > that feels natural, it's good to do. For example if I have two tests > that require the same setup and teardown but do different things in > the middle, and if those things seem related, then it's great to set > up once, try both things, and tear down once. However I don't support > combining test cases where it's just concatenating them one after > another, because that sort of thing seems to have no benefit. Fewer > files in the source tree is not a goal of itself. Sounds like a reasonable criteria. > > No. Thanks for the words, Robert. I might be a bit too naive, but I > > had an anxious feeling that I might have been totally pointless or my > > words might have been too cryptic/broken (my fingers are quite fat), > > or I might have done something wrong or anything other. Anyway I > > thought I might have done something wrong here. > > No, I don't think so. I think the difficulty is more that the three of > us who are mostly involved in this conversation all have different > native languages, and we are trying to discuss an issue which is very > subtle. Sometimes I am having difficulty understanding precisely what > either you or Dilip are intending to say, and it would not surprise me > to learn that there are difficulties in the other direction also. If > we seem to be covering the same topics multiple times or if any > important points seem to be getting ignored, that's probably the > reason. That makes me convinced. Thanks for the thought and sorry for bothering with the complaint. Anyway, Now I agree to the all of the direction here. Thanks! -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
