| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Test code is worth the space |
| Date: | 2015-08-13 06:31:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS9WwnnxeaTimQqmRqE28an9oKOP2sZkhKiZc7pdhUL4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> The value of a core regression suite that takes less time to run has
>> to be weighed against the possibility that a better core regression
>> suite might cause us to find more bugs before committing. That could
>> easily be worth the price in runtime.
>
>
> Or have a quickcheck you run "all the time" and then run the bigger one once
> before committing perhaps?
I favor splitting the regression tests to add "all the time" and
"before commit" targets as you describe. I think that once the
facility is there, we can determine over time how expansive that
second category gets to be.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-08-13 07:17:44 | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-08-13 06:24:21 | Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context |