At 2009-04-13 10:40:41 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> writes:
> > [ a test whose purpose he didn't bother to describe ]
I'm sorry about that.
> What is the value of this? It seems far more likely to cause
> maintenance pain than to catch anything interesting.
While I was writing pg_get_functiondef(), I found myself wishing for
just such a function (one with all the toppings, as it were) to make
sure I wasn't missing something. I thought it would be useful to keep
the function around to prevent inadvertent breakage, that's all. The
fact that the code was duplicated in pg_dump also worried me, though
this test case doesn't help with that.
What maintenance pain would it cause? It seems to me that if anything
causes this test to fail in future, it deserves a second look.
But it's a trivial patch, hardly worth spending much time discussing.
Perhaps its being in the mailing list archives is good enough.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-04-21 11:03:56|
|Subject: Re: New trigger option of pg_standby|
|Previous:||From: Albe Laurenz||Date: 2009-04-21 10:36:44|
|Subject: Re: trouble with to_char('L')|