From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Address portability issues in bfe16d1a5 test output. |
Date: | 2016-09-13 02:04:32 |
Message-ID: | 20160913020432.gs7gqrywhz2b3skx@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 2016-09-12 21:49:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2016-09-12 21:33:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It looks like making your tables temp would work around it ...
>
> > Right. But the more general question about the value of that test
> > remain. Not that the tables in this test matter given how simple they
> > are, but in general it doesn't hurt to have objects survive the
> > regression tests, to increase dump coverage.
>
> > Shouldn't we just drop that test?
>
> Fair question --- it's not immediately obvious what that tests
> that isn't covered at least as well by the adjacent tests.
> The git history isn't much help: all of that came in in one big
> commit from Tom Lockhart.
Well, then let's drop it (including the definition of user_relns). Doing
so unless somebody protests pdq.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-09-13 02:39:47 | pgsql: Remove user_relns() SRF from regression tests. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-13 01:49:47 | Re: pgsql: Address portability issues in bfe16d1a5 test output. |