|From:||Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Tests for reloptions|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
В письме от 19 октября 2017 14:20:52 Вы написали:
> Yeah, it would perhaps be good idea to ensure we don't break things that
> are documented to work. If the tests don't take too long, I'm not
> opposed to testing every single option. As you say, code coverage is
> important but it's not the only goal.
> I'm hesitant to hardcode things like the number of bits in bloom, as you
> had in the original. If I understand correctly, that number could
> change with compile options (different blocksize?), so I removed that
> part. I also fixed a few spelling errors.
> And pushed. Let's see what the buildfarm says about this.
While merging this commit to my branch, I found two issues that as I think
needs fixing. Hope this does not require creating new commit request...
First is missing tab.
Second i think it is better to write "The OIDS option is not stored as
_reloption_" otherwise it cat be read as if it is not stored at all.
See patch in the attachment.
Thank you again for your work with the patch. I've seen how much you have
PS do I get right that 80 character code width rule is applied to SQL tests
Do code for fun. Can do it for money (Perl & C/C++ ~10h/week)
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2017-10-29 16:25:25||Re: Parallel safety for extern params|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2017-10-29 13:48:59||Re: WIP: Restricting pg_rewind to data/wal dirs|