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. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers