From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension |
Date: | 2016-02-02 02:24:09 |
Message-ID: | 56B01349.6060809@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/1/16 4:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> .... Anyway I think the tests here are
>> massive and the code is not; perhaps people get the mistaken impression
>> that this is a huge amount of code which scares them. Perhaps you could
>> split it up in (1) code and (2) tests, which wouldn't achieve any
>> technical benefit but would offer some psychological comfort to
>> potential reviewers. You know it's all psychology in these parts.
>
> Perhaps the tests could be made less bulky. We do not need massive
> permanent regression tests for a single feature, IMO.
I'd certainly like to but pgaudit uses a lot of different techniques to
log various commands and there are a number of GUCs. Each test provides
coverage for a different code path.
I'm sure they could be reorganized and tightened up a but I don't think
by a whole lot.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2016-02-02 02:42:16 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-02-02 02:10:35 | Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension |