Re: Add regression tests for ROLE (USER)

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add regression tests for ROLE (USER)
Date: 2013-07-09 10:25:50
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.02.1307091217430.11644@localhost6.localdomain6
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>> I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
>> syntax error message conveys a useful information for the user, and that
>> changes to the parser rules do not alter good quality error messages.
>
> It's good to check those things when a feature is implemented. However,
> once it's done, the odds of the bison parser breaking are very low.

I do not know that. When the next version of bison is out (I have 2.5 from
2011 on my laptop, 2.7.1 was released on 2013-04-15), or if a new "super
great acme incredible" drop-in replacement is proposed, you would like to
see the impact, whether positive or negative, it has on error messages
before switching.

> Thus, the benefit of testing that over again thousands of times a day
> is pretty tiny.

Sure, I agree that thousands of times per day is an overkill for syntax
errors. But once in a while would be good, and for that you need to have
them somewhere, and the current status is "nowhere".

--
Fabien.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-07-09 10:40:20 Re: Review: extension template
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-07-09 09:48:42 Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited