Re: Increase pltcl test coverage

Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 1/9/17 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. I looked at that but couldn't get terribly excited about it,
>> because AFAICS, Tcl in general is apt to fall over under sufficient
>> memory pressure.

> Though, since a memory error could just as likely come out of tcl, which
> is going to panic us anyway, I guess it doesn't matter.

Exactly. I can't get excited about making our code slower and less
readable if there's only a fifty-fifty chance that doing so avoids a
crash. Tcl users just need to stay far away from OOM conditions.

(If it were a more popular language, maybe there would be reason to
try to push to improve this, but ...)

regards, tom lane