On 01/20/2012 10:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Greg Smith<g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
The updated patch looks good, marking as 'Ready for Committer'
Patches without documentation are never ready for commit. For this one, I'm
not sure if that should be in the form of a reference example in contrib, or
just something that documents that the hook exists and what the ground rules
are for grabbing it.
Hooks are frequently not documented, and we only sometimes even bother
to include an example in contrib. We should probably at least have a
working example for testing purposes, though, whether or not we end up
committing it.
I'm just looking at this patch, and I agree, it should be testable. I'm
wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a module or set of
modules for demonstrating and testing bits of the API that we expose.
src/test/api or something similar? I'm not sure how we'd automate a test
for this case, though. I guess we could use something like pg_logforward
and have a UDP receiver catch the messages and write them to a file.
Something like that should be possible to rig up in Perl. But all that
seems a lot of work at this stage of the game. So the question is do we
want to commit this patch without it?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
