On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:19:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > Some or even most of the other tests would qualify under "closely related to > > ... a feature that is new in 9.6". Your 9.6 pg_dump changes affected object > > selection and catalog extraction for most object types, so I think > > validating > > those paths is in scope under Robert's suggestion. Testing "pg_dump > > --encoding" or "pg_dump --jobs" probably wouldn't fall in scope, because > > those > > features operate at arm's length from the 9.6 pg_dump changes. Expanding, > > for > > example, tests of postgres_fdw query deparse would certainly fall out of > > scope. That would have no apparent chance of catching a regression caused > > by > > the 9.6 pg_dump changes. > > ...although it might catch bugs in the deparsing logic, which was > heavily revised in 9.6.
True. I cancel my last two sentences above; that was a weak choice of example, and the surviving sentences convey the message adequately. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
