| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: count_nulls(VARIADIC "any") |
| Date: | 2016-01-22 12:34:48 |
| Message-ID: | 56A221E8.4000602@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/21/16 1:48 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> the form of regress tests is not pretty significant issue. Jim's
> design is little bit transparent, Marko's is maybe little bit
> practical. Both has sense from my opinion, and any hasn't
> significant advantage against other.
>
>
> any possible agreement, how these tests should be designed?
>
> simple patch, simple regress tests, so there are no reason for long waiting.
I don't really see how individual tests are more practical (you can
still cut and paste a table...), but since there's no strong consensus
either way I'd say it's up to you as author.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-01-22 12:41:29 | Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-01-22 12:32:29 | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |