On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I took a look at this with a view to committing it but on examination >>>> I'm not sure this is the best way to proceed. The proposed text >>>> documents that the tests should be run in a database called >>>> regression, but the larger documentation chapter of which this section >>>> is a part never explains how to run them anywhere else, so it feels a >>>> bit like telling a ten-year-old not to burn out the clutch. >>>> >>>> The bit about not changing enable_* probably belongs, if anywhere, in >>>> section 30.2, on test evaluation, rather than here. >>> And what about the attached? I have moved all the content to 30.2, and >>> added two paragraphs: one about the planner flags, the other about the >>> database used. >>> Regards, >> >> Well, it doesn't really address my first concern, which was that you >> talk about running the tests in a database named regression, but >> that's exactly what "make check" does and it's unclear how you would >> do anything else without modifying the source code. It's not the >> purpose of the documentation to tell you all the ways that you could >> break things if you patch the tree. I also don't want to document >> exactly which tests would fail if you did hack things like that; that >> documentation is likely to become outdated. >> >> I think the remaining points you raise are worth mentioning. I'm >> attaching a patch with my proposed rewording of your changes. I made >> the section about configuration parameters a bit more generic and >> adjusted the phrasing to sound more natural in English, and I moved >> your mention of the other issues around a bit. What do you think of >> this version? > The part about the planning parameter looks good, thanks. The places > used to mention the databases used also makes more sense. Thanks for > your input.
OK, committed and back-patched to 9.3. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers