On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:56:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >>> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be run, I
> >>> was thinking we should stick them under some make target that
> >>> developers run all the time anyway -- perhaps "check".
> >>> Shouldn't we catch simple mechanically detectable problems as
> >>> early in the pipeline as possible?
> >> Adding overhead to every developer's every test cycle doesn't
> >> sound like a win.
> > If it takes 100ms, nobody's gonna notice.
> I doubt running a perl script that analyzes the entire backend
> source code is gonna take 100ms.

What would be a reasonable maximum amount of time for such a check to take?

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

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

Reply via email to