On 4/9/14 9:56 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
As for docs and testing, those are things we would certainly be better off with and may mean that this isn't able to make it into 9.4, which is fair, but I wouldn't toss it out solely due to that.
We have a git repo with multiple worked out code examples, ones that have been in active testing for months now. It's private just to reduce mistakes as things are cleared for public consumption, but I (and Mark and Jeff here) can pull anything we like from it to submit to hackers. There's also a test case set from Yeb Havinga he used for his review.
I expected to turn at least one of those into a Postgres regression test. The whole thing squealed to a stop when the regression tests Craig was working on were raising multiple serious questions. I didn't see much sense in bundling more boring, passing tests when the ones we already had seemed off--and no one was sure why.
Now that Tom has given some guidance on the row locking weirdness, maybe it's time for me to start updating those into make check form. The documentation has been in a similar holding pattern. I have lots of resources to help document what does and doesn't work here to the quality expected in the manual. I just need a little more confidence about which feature set is commit worthy. The documentation that makes sense is very different if only updatable security barrier views is committed.
-- Greg Smith greg.sm...@crunchydatasolutions.com Chief PostgreSQL Evangelist - http://crunchydatasolutions.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers