From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remaining 'needs review' patchs in July commitfest |
Date: | 2015-07-28 22:17:43 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQXWex2yPGaHzmcDjCEbHMBfm0wQ77+hXH6gBcmKeiw6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 11:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we want to have this in src/test/modules or src/bin/pg_dump/t?
>>
>>
>> Are we testing pg_dump here, or are we testing extensions? If the
>> former, src/bin/pg_dump/t seems best.
All the tests are using pg_dump, but it is testing dumpable tables in
an extension. At this point I am not sure which one is better honestly
X/. Putting it in pg_dump/t will require two lines in the make target
prove_check such as modules in this path are installed as well, and
the argument against having it in src/test/modules is that it would
bloat it in the future if we do the same for all binaries,
particularly if we have multiple modules for each one.
> I think that's the crux of the disagreement :-).
Yep.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-28 23:04:10 | Re: Failing assertions in indxpath.c, placeholder.c and brin_minmax.c |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-07-28 22:12:27 | Re: Re: Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?) |