| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Test suite fails on non-default configuration | 
| Date: | 2011-04-18 23:12:49 | 
| Message-ID: | 18342.1303168369@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc | 
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>         // PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED
>         assertEquals(Connection.TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED,
>                      con.getTransactionIsolation());
 
> Should the unit tests really be failing based on configuration
> options?
Well, for a comparison point, you can certainly make the server's
regression tests fail too if you whack the configuration around enough.
I agree that the above seems perhaps overly fragile, but I don't think
you can expect to have a general principle that the JDBC tests should
pass regardless of configuration.  It's more a question of how painful
is it to support any particular nondefault configuration choice, and
does it seem worth it based on real-world usage of the choice.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2011-04-19 01:20:30 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 | 
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-04-18 21:28:27 | Test suite fails on non-default configuration |