On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I'm inclined to just drop the out-of-range test cases. They're not that
>>> useful IMO, and alternate expected-files are a real PITA for maintenance.
>
>> Hm. Actually, they are quite useful to check error boundaries, so why
>> not just simplifying the error message to "timestamp out of range" and
>> remove the value from it?
>
> Meh. I realize that there are a lot of places where we just say
> "timestamp out of range" rather than trying to give a specific value,
> but it's really contrary to our message style guidelines to not print
> the complained-of value. I think we should leave the ereport calls as-is
> and remove the test cases; to do otherwise is putting the regression tests
> ahead of users. The upper-boundary test is quite dubiously useful anyway,
> because it has to test a value that's very far away from where the
> boundary actually is in most builds.
OK, I won't fight more on that.
--
Michael