Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > New tests are not zero-cost; they create a distributed burden on the > buildfarm and, by increasing the buildfarm cycle time, slow down feedback > to authors of subsequent patches. So I'm very much not on board with > any argument that "more tests are always better and don't even require > discussion".
I agree with that and certainly considered it while working on these added tests. > I'd have liked to see this patch posted with some commentary along the > lines of "this improves LOC coverage in pg_dump by X%, and for me it > increases the time taken for 'make installcheck' in bin/pg_dump by Y%". > Assuming Y isn't totally out of line with X, I doubt anyone would have > objected or even bothered to review the patch in detail ... but it would > have been polite to proceed that way. About 8% increased LOC coverage for pg_dump.c (which isn't small when you consider how large that file is). The additional time seemed to be on the 5-6s range, moving the test from 35s to 40s or so. > In short, I agree with Stephen's position that test additions can get > away with less review than other sorts of changes, but I also agree with > Robert's position that that doesn't mean there's no process to follow > at all. Fair enough. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature