Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Subject: Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%
Date: 2020-08-01 20:42:32
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>>>> This patch no longer applies:
>>>> CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
>>> This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't apply, do you intend to rebase
>>> it during this commitfest or should we move it to returned with feedback? It
>>> can always be re-opened at a later date.
>> As the thread has stalled, I've marked this Returned with Feedback.
> Hmmm.
> AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which seems to suggest that it would have to be re-implemented somehow. This is not my dev philosophy, I won't do that, so I'm sorry to say that psql coverage will remain pretty abysmal.

Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a dependency on
Expect. The feedback returned in this case is that the patch hasn't applied
since March, and that the patch is more than welcome to be re-entered in the
next CF once it does.

cheers ./daniel

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-08-01 21:17:02 Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-08-01 18:30:29 Re: [PATCH] Btree BackwardScan race condition on Standby during VACUUM