Re: Unit testing

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> 2. Won't dissolving away "static" cause naming conflicts?

Most likely (and I for one will for sure resist any attempt to force
global uniqueness on static names). It seems that that whole issue
is easily avoided though ... just #include the source file under test
into the unit-test module for it, instead of compiling them separately.

> 3. Unit testing frameworks are best suited to component-based
> architectures, ISTM. I'm not sure that one would fit Postgres very well.

I have strong doubts about the usefulness of this too, but if Gavin and
Neil want to invest some time in trying it, I won't stand in their way.

One thing I don't particularly want is a bunch of invasive code changes,
at least in advance of seeing convincing proof that this will be a big win
for us. The bits about "we'll just refactor the code till we like it"
are raising some red flags for me --- I think that that is at least as
likely to introduce new bugs as find existing ones.

regards, tom lane