From: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: smallserial / serial2 |
Date: | 2011-06-10 02:27:41 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikfTvO8kEqHS48Zpkx8V2bwTFHnVw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de> wrote:
> I tried to look at everything and cover everthing but please consider that
> this is my first review so please have a second look at it!
I took a look at this as well, and I didn't encounter any problems
either. The patch is surprisingly small, but it looks like all the
documentation spots got covered, and I didn't see any missing pieces;
pg_dump copes fine, I didn't try pg_upgrade but I wouldn't expect
problems there either.
Actually, the one piece I think could be added is a regression test. I
didn't see any existing tests that covered bigserial/serial8, either,
so I went ahead and added a few tests for smallerial and bigserial. I
didn't see the testcases Brar posted at first, or I might have adopted
a few from there, but this should cover basic use of smallserial.
Josh
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
serial_regtest.patch | text/x-patch | 10.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-10 03:05:23 | Creating new remote branch in git? |
Previous Message | Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda | 2011-06-10 02:23:38 | Re: Difference in postgres9.0.4 and postgres9.1beta1 when displaying error lines in functions with comments |