Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions

2017-10-29 Thread Nikolay Shaplov
В письме от 19 октября 2017 14:20:52 Вы написали: > Yeah, it would perhaps be good idea to ensure we don't break things that > are documented to work. If the tests don't take too long, I'm not > opposed to testing every single option. As you say, code coverage is > important but it's not the onl

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions

2017-10-22 Thread Nikolay Shaplov
В письме от 19 октября 2017 14:20:52 Вы написали: > I'm hesitant to hardcode things like the number of bits in bloom, as you > had in the original. If I understand correctly, that number could > change with compile options (different blocksize?), so I removed that > part. #define MAX_BLOOM_LEN

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions

2017-10-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Oh, one more thing: be careful when editing parallel_schedule. There are constraints on the number of entries in each group; you had added a 20th entry after the comment that the group can only have 19. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Su

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions

2017-10-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > В письме от 3 октября 2017 11:48:43 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > I've been thinking a lot, and rereading the patch. When I reread it I've been > thinking that I would like to add more tests to it now... ;-) > > If the only purpose of tests is to get better cov

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions

2017-10-06 Thread Nikolay Shaplov
В письме от 3 октября 2017 11:48:43 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > > src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c get only 7 lines, it was quite > > covered by existing test, but all most of the access methods gets some > > coverage increase: > > > > src/backend/access/brin 1268 -> 128

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions

2017-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c get only 7 lines, it was quite covered > by existing test, but all most of the access methods gets some coverage > increase: > > src/backend/access/brin 1268 -> 1280 (+18) > src/backend/access/g

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions

2017-09-30 Thread Nikolay Shaplov
While working with reloptions refactoring patch, I've written series of tests that triggers reloptions related code in all access methods. (I needed it to make sure I did not break anything while coding) I've included these tests to that patch. Meanwhile Alvaro suggested to commit these tests

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions

2017-09-05 Thread Nikolay Shaplov
This thread continues discussion at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170903094543.kkqdbdjuxwa5z6ji@alvherre.pgsql (Shortly: I refactored reloptions code, Alvaro offered to commit tests before the full patch) > I see that this patch adds a few tests for reloptions, for instance in > bloom