From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump |
Date: | 2015-09-08 18:33:56 |
Message-ID: | 20150908183356.GJ5084@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-09-07 22:55:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So, to summarize the state of this patch whose status is now "Waiting
> on Author", we have the following possibilities:
> 1) Keep the test as-is, as an independent test of src/test/modules.
I find that a bad option. A test that takes this long and has that much
setup for such a marginal amount of coverage just doesn't seem worth it.
> 2) Integrate it in the test suite of src/test/regress and let
> pg_upgrade make the work with dump/restore.
2b) ... and create a single src/test/modules/pg_dumprestore test that
initdbs, runs installcheck, dumps, loads and compares a repated dump.
I think 2b) is by far the best choice.
> I would still go for 1), the infrastructures included by the other
> proposals may become useful depending on the types of tests that are
> added in the future, but it is still unclear what those tests are, and
> they may even need something else than what listed here (see that as
> an example http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/54F62C3F.8070702@gmx.net)
> to run properly.
By that argument we're going to add more and more isolated tests and
never merge anything.
I fail to see a single benefit of this approach.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-09-08 18:35:38 | Re: Separating Buffer LWlocks |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-08 18:31:53 | Re: Separating Buffer LWlocks |