On 2017-04-04 08:57:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2017-04-04 09:24:23 +1000, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote:
> >> Just quickly, Is it not ok to consider only the code patch for this CF
> >> without test patch?
> >
> > I'd say no, it's not acceptable.  This is too much new code for it not
> > to be tested.
> Doesn't it depend actually?

Well, I didn't make a general statement, I made one about this patch.
And this would add a significant bunch of untested code, and it'll likely
take years till it gets decent coverage outside.

> In the case of this patch, it seems to me that we would have a far
> better portable set of tests if we had a dedicated set of subcommands
> available at psql level, particularly for Windows/MSVC.

That's a really large scope creep imo.  Adding a bunch of user-facing
psql stuff doesn't compare in complexity to running a test across
platforms.  We can just do that from regess.c or such, if that ends up
being a problem..

> If that's a  requirement for this patch so let it be. I am not saying that 
> tests
> are not necessary. They are of course, but in this case having a bit
> more infrastructure would be more be more helpful for users and the
> tests themselves.

I'm not following.


Andres Freund

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to