Re: test_compression, test module for low-level compression APIs (for 2b5ba2a0a141)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: test_compression, test module for low-level compression APIs (for 2b5ba2a0a141)
Date: 2026-04-13 03:52:59
Message-ID: adxom6GLPHgCTfJM@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 10:20:43PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> There's really no reason for something like this to be a test doing tests via
> SQL from what I can tell.
>
> If it does not to be via SSL, can we please start to find a way to combine
> tiny stuff like this? We're working hard at making our tests grow
> unsustainable.

If we care about `make check` rather than `make installcheck`, it
seems to me that a solution already exists in the shape of C function
called through the main regression test suite. And for the specific
case of this thread, I could live with two new functions in regress.c
that are then called in compression.sql.

Would this idea work for you when it comes to this proposal?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2026-04-13 03:54:12 RE: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication
Previous Message wenhui qiu 2026-04-13 03:27:39 Re: Propagate stadistinct through GROUP BY/DISTINCT in subqueries and CTEs