Re: Contribution to Perldoc for TestLib module in Postgres

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Ramanarayana' <raam(dot)soft(at)gmail(dot)com>, Prajwal A V <prajwal450(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Contribution to Perldoc for TestLib module in Postgres
Date: 2019-09-03 06:30:24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 01:48:14PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Agreed ... that's pretty much the same thing I tried to say upthread. I
> wrote my own synopsis, partly using your suggestions. I reworded the
> description for the routines (I don't think there's any I didn't touch),
> added a mention of $windows_os, added a =head1 to split out the ad-hoc
> routines from the Test::More wrappers.
> And pushed.
> Please give it another look. It might need more polish.

Thanks for committing. I have read through the commit and I am not
noticing any issue sorting out. One thing may be to give a short
description for some of the routine's arguments like
check_mode_recursive, but I think that we could live without that

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-09-03 06:37:27 Re: Proposal: roll pg_stat_statements into core
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2019-09-03 06:13:01 Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?