Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)
Date: 2012-03-17 22:47:45
Message-ID: CAEYLb_VQxpafA_3d5ZfQOcVPxD4jbMjWuDLxj4nS=DEBy-X6QQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Is there anything that I could be doing to help bring this patch
closer to a committable state? I'm thinking of the tests in particular
- do you suppose it's acceptable to commit them more or less as-is?

The standard for testing contrib modules seems to be a bit different,
as there is a number of other cases where an impedance mistmatch with
pg_regress necessitates doing things differently. So, the sepgsql
tests, which I understand are mainly to test the environment that the
module is being built for rather than the code itself, are written as
a shellscript than uses various selinux tools. There is also a Perl
script that uses DBD::Pg to benchmark intarray, for example.

Now that we have a defacto standard python driver, something that we
didn't have a couple of years ago, it probably isn't terribly
unreasonable to keep the tests in Python. They'll still probably need
some level of clean-up, to cut back on some of the tests that are
redundant. Some of the tests are merely fuzz tests, which are perhaps
a bit questionable.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2012-03-17 22:58:33 Re: sortsupport for text
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-03-17 22:45:20 Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt