Re: New regresion test for SET/RESET commnad

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New regresion test for SET/RESET commnad
Date: 2006-07-12 04:54:42
Message-ID: 12838.1152680082@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> I created new regression test for check SET and RESET commands and
> configuration subsystem.

Does this actually accomplish anything? The checks that retail SETs
and RESETs work seem redundant with numerous existing tests. The SELECT
from pg_settings is a seriously bad idea: it adds 100K of bloat to the
regression files, tests nothing of great interest, and will cause
regression test failures under a large variety of scenarios (eg, initdb
chose less-than-max shared memory settings, or we're doing "make
installcheck" against an installed server with even one nondefault
parameter setting). Not to mention the extra maintenance effort of
updating this expected file anytime anyone changes guc.c at all,
even to the extent of fixing grammar in a GUC-variable description.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2006-07-12 05:27:57 Re: [patch 0/9] annual pgcrypto update
Previous Message Greg Stark 2006-07-12 04:44:29 Re: [PATCHES] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup()