Re: Missing program_XXX calling in pgbench tests

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Peter Eisentraut' <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing program_XXX calling in pgbench tests
Date: 2025-06-06 11:22:43
Message-ID: 4c4f9e84-1beb-4339-af0d-48b1efe5ac96@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2025/06/05 16:44, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thanks for the comment.
>
>> Patch 0001 looks very sensible.
>>
>> I don't think we need to bother we the other ones. pg_config works
>> differently than the other programs anyway, because --version does not
>> exit the program. And pg_bsd_indent is an externally maintained
>> program. So I think it is ok if these two are intentionally different.
>
> You meant that 0002-0004 are not needed, right?
> So let's put on out-of-scope...

I agree with Peter. I don't think patches 0002 and 0003 are necessary.

As for 0004, it adds tests for the short options -? and -V, which
duplicate the existing tests for the long options --help and --version.
I'm not sure it's worth adding tests just to confirm that the short
and long options behave the same.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-06-06 11:33:47 Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Previous Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2025-06-06 11:03:12 Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure