Re: [PATCH v4] Add \warn to psql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Add \warn to psql
Date: 2019-07-05 16:48:10
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> I agree that using TAP test if another simpler option is available is not
> a good move.

> However, in the current state, as soon as there is some variation a test
> is removed and coverage is lost, but they could be kept if the check could
> be against a regexp.

I'm fairly suspicious of using TAP tests just to get a regexp match.
The thing I don't like about TAP tests for this is that they won't
notice if the test case prints extra stuff beyond what you were
expecting --- at least, not without care that I don't think we usually

I've thought for some time that we should steal an idea from MySQL
and extend pg_regress so that individual lines of an expected-file
could have regexp match patterns rather than being just exact matches.
I'm not really sure how to do that without reimplementing diff(1)
for ourselves :-(, but that would be a very large step forward if
we could find a reasonable implementation.

Anyway, my opinion about having TAP test(s) for psql remains that
it'll be a good idea as soon as somebody submits a test that adds
a meaningful amount of code coverage that way (and the coverage
can't be gotten more simply). But we don't need a patch that is
just trying to get the camel's nose under the tent.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2019-07-05 16:48:29 Re: range_agg
Previous Message Alexey Bashtanov 2019-07-05 16:40:49 Re: log bind parameter values on error