On 26 June 2013 02:26, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
So technically I hope this regression patch I submitted could go through
since this feedback isn't towards that patch, but in my part I am quite
intrigued about this test (and how it passes) and probably I'd get back on
this
On 27 June 2013 09:00, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so I think this patch can be committed, I will change the status.
We have a convention that roles created by the regression tests needs
to have regress
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so I think this patch can be committed, I will change the status.
We have a convention that roles created by the regression tests needs
to have regress or something of the sort in the name, and that they
need to be dropped
Sure Robert.
I 'll update the tests and get back.
Two questions, while we're at it:
1. Any other conventions (for naming)?
2. Should I assume that all database objects that get created, need to be
dropped explicitly? Or is this point specifically about ROLES?
--
Robins Tharakan
On 27 June
Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com writes:
2. Should I assume that all database objects that get created, need to be
dropped explicitly? Or is this point specifically about ROLES?
It's about any global objects (that wouldn't get dropped by dropping the
regression database). As far as local
Hi Szymon,
The commented out test that you're referring to, is an existing test (not
that I added or commented). I was going to remove but interestingly its
testing a part of code where (prima-facie) it should fail, but it passes
(probably why it was disabled in the first place)
!
So
OK, so I think this patch can be committed, I will change the status.
thanks,
Szymon
On 26 June 2013 09:26, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Szymon,
The commented out test that you're referring to, is an existing test (not
that I added or commented). I was going to remove but
On 06/26/2013 12:29 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
OK, so I think this patch can be committed, I will change the status.
Can we have a full review before you mark it ready for committer? How
did you test it? What kinds of review have you done?
The committer can't know whether it's ready or not if he
On 26 June 2013 20:55, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 06/26/2013 12:29 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
OK, so I think this patch can be committed, I will change the status.
Can we have a full review before you mark it ready for committer? How
did you test it? What kinds of review have you
On 26 June 2013 20:57, Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2013 20:55, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 06/26/2013 12:29 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
OK, so I think this patch can be committed, I will change the status.
Can we have a full review before you mark it ready for
Is it enough to provide the description in the commitfest app, or is that
better to send an email and provide link in commitfest?
Better to do it here, on the list.
This is a patch only with regression tests, is that enough to write
something like: This patch applies cleanly on trunk code.
On 26 June 2013 21:10, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Is it enough to provide the description in the commitfest app, or is that
better to send an email and provide link in commitfest?
Better to do it here, on the list.
This is a patch only with regression tests, is that enough to
Thanks a ton Szymon (for a reminder on this one).
As a coincidental turn of events, I have had to travel half way across the
world and am without my personal laptop (without a linux distro etc.) and
just recovering from a jet-lag now.
I'll try to install a VM on a make-shift laptop and get
On 23 May 2013 00:34, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached a patch to take code-coverage of CREATE OPERATOR
(src/backend/commands/operatorcmds.c) from 56% to 91%.
Any and all feedback is welcome.
--
Robins Tharakan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
14 matches
Mail list logo
