| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD |
| Date: | 2019-01-18 00:43:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20190118004338.GC1883@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 07:21:08PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sorry, I don't buy this line of argument. Reasonable test design requires
> making cost/benefit tradeoffs: the cost to run the test over and over,
> and the cost to maintain the test itself (e.g. fix portability issues in
> it) have to be balanced against the probability of it finding something
> useful. I judge that the chance of this particular test finding something
> is small, and I've had quite enough of the maintenance costs.
Yes, I agree with Tom's line of thoughts here. It seems to me that
just dropping this part of the test is just but fine.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2019-01-18 00:56:45 | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2019-01-18 00:40:35 | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |