Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, "Prabakaran, Vaishnavi" <VaishnaviP(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Manuel Kniep <m(dot)kniep(at)web(dot)de>, "fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Date: 2017-04-04 04:52:01
Message-ID: 20170404045201.eja742vmfu45bf5d@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-04-04 08:57:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2017-04-04 09:24:23 +1000, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote:
> >> Just quickly, Is it not ok to consider only the code patch for this CF
> >> without test patch?
> >
> > I'd say no, it's not acceptable. This is too much new code for it not
> > to be tested.
>
> Doesn't it depend actually?

Well, I didn't make a general statement, I made one about this patch.
And this would add a significant bunch of untested code, and it'll likely
take years till it gets decent coverage outside.

> In the case of this patch, it seems to me that we would have a far
> better portable set of tests if we had a dedicated set of subcommands
> available at psql level, particularly for Windows/MSVC.

That's a really large scope creep imo. Adding a bunch of user-facing
psql stuff doesn't compare in complexity to running a test across
platforms. We can just do that from regess.c or such, if that ends up
being a problem..

> If that's a requirement for this patch so let it be. I am not saying that tests
> are not necessary. They are of course, but in this case having a bit
> more infrastructure would be more be more helpful for users and the
> tests themselves.

I'm not following.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Haribabu Kommi 2017-04-04 05:06:08 Re: Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-04-04 04:47:31 Re: Parallel Append implementation