Re: Remaining 'needs review' patchs in July commitfest

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remaining 'needs review' patchs in July commitfest
Date: 2015-07-28 22:17:43
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQXWex2yPGaHzmcDjCEbHMBfm0wQ77+hXH6gBcmKeiw6w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 11:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we want to have this in src/test/modules or src/bin/pg_dump/t?
>>
>>
>> Are we testing pg_dump here, or are we testing extensions? If the
>> former, src/bin/pg_dump/t seems best.

All the tests are using pg_dump, but it is testing dumpable tables in
an extension. At this point I am not sure which one is better honestly
X/. Putting it in pg_dump/t will require two lines in the make target
prove_check such as modules in this path are installed as well, and
the argument against having it in src/test/modules is that it would
bloat it in the future if we do the same for all binaries,
particularly if we have multiple modules for each one.

> I think that's the crux of the disagreement :-).

Yep.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-07-28 23:04:10 Re: Failing assertions in indxpath.c, placeholder.c and brin_minmax.c
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-07-28 22:12:27 Re: Re: Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?)