|From:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, nospam-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com, craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: TAP test module - PostgresClient|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
At Sat, 3 Mar 2018 09:46:11 -0500, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <7f1e5f2f-4902-2c29-de82-381de8cc6d66(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> On 3/1/18 23:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:27:13AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> If I understand correctly there's been no progress on this since, and
> >> there'd definitely need to be major work to get something we can agree
> >> upon. Doesn't seem v11 material. I think we should mark this as returned
> >> with feedback. Arguments against?
> > Agreed with your position. The TAP tests rely on IPC::Run as a pillar
> > of its infrastructure. I think that if we need a base API to do such
> > capabilities we ought to prioritize what we can do with it first instead
> > of trying to reinvent the wheel as this patch proposes in such a
> > complicated way.
> I haven't seen any explanation for a problem this is solving. The
> original submission contained a sample test case, by I don't see why
> that couldn't be done with the existing infrastructure.
> Patch closed for now.
Agreed. This is not a v11 matter. Thanks.
NTT Open Source Software Center
|Next Message||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI||2018-03-07 00:26:38||Re: Index-only scan returns incorrect results when using a composite GIST index with a gist_trgm_ops column.|
|Previous Message||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI||2018-03-07 00:20:28||Re: line_perp() (?-|) is broken.|