From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: new tests post-feature freeze (was pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_dump) |
Date: | 2016-05-25 01:04:10 |
Message-ID: | 20160525010410.GA397858@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:19:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > Some or even most of the other tests would qualify under "closely related to
> > ... a feature that is new in 9.6". Your 9.6 pg_dump changes affected object
> > selection and catalog extraction for most object types, so I think validating
> > those paths is in scope under Robert's suggestion. Testing "pg_dump
> > --encoding" or "pg_dump --jobs" probably wouldn't fall in scope, because those
> > features operate at arm's length from the 9.6 pg_dump changes. Expanding, for
> > example, tests of postgres_fdw query deparse would certainly fall out of
> > scope. That would have no apparent chance of catching a regression caused by
> > the 9.6 pg_dump changes.
>
> ...although it might catch bugs in the deparsing logic, which was
> heavily revised in 9.6.
True. I cancel my last two sentences above; that was a weak choice of
example, and the surviving sentences convey the message adequately.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2016-05-25 01:04:36 | RLS related docs |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-05-25 00:45:51 | Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended? |