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
> 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.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: