Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump
Date: 2015-07-08 04:28:03
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRW0LQW0Dg_0CA3iso_cx1zXg_BDenOri+opEE77EVmuA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Hmm. I think it'd be better to put the tables_fk extension into
> src/test/modules, and the test case under src/test/tables_fk/t/. I'm
> inclined to think of this as a test case for an extension that contains a
> table, which includes testing that pg_dump/restore works, rather than as a
> test of pg_dump itself.

The first version of this patch actually did that:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqQrxhy3+wvUmA69KJXiRPpV5qWJi-3cLn3ZJgByqe_BQQ@mail.gmail.com
The reason why it has been changed to this way of doing is that there
were concerns about bloating src/test/modules with many similar tests
in the future, like imagine pg_dump_test_1, pg_dump_test_2.

Attached is an updated version that can be used in src/test/modules as
well. Makefile needed also an extra EXTRA_INSTALL pointing to
src/test/modules/tables_fk. Nothing amazing. I have also reworded
one-two things at the same time while looking at that again.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Add-TAP-test-for-pg_dump-checking-data-dump-of-exten.patch text/x-diff 5.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-07-08 05:11:59 Re: Set of patch to address several Coverity issues
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2015-07-08 03:36:42 Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?