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

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
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 07:06:39
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2008010901470.3778779@pseudo
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>>> 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.


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.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-08-01 12:24:31 Re: Getting rid of some more lseek() calls
Previous Message Mahendra Singh Thalor 2020-08-01 07:01:53 Re: display offset along with block number in vacuum errors