From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Keisuke Kuroda <keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions |
Date: | 2025-01-28 10:33:58 |
Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TNTeCAFzsC55gViD68VLci2TQX319ciFHirHG-t_Dh33Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> The correct version is as follows.
>
> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: tested, passed
> Documentation: tested, passed
Thanks for your feedback!
> About the tests pushed to the SSL test suite, I'm +-0. 003_sslinfo.pl
> is a bit better than the two others in the SSL test suite, still it
> does not really fit into this file.
So to clarify, you propose creating a new file for the test (still in
the ssl/ suite) or keep it as is?
I agree that this is not exactly the best place for the test. However
I'm not sure whether creating a new one, e.g.
ssl/t/004_code_coverage.pl will be much better considering the fact
that the test still has little (nothing) to do with SSL.
Personally I'm fine with either option though.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vladyslav Nebozhyn | 2025-01-28 10:46:50 | Feature Request: Add AES-128-CFB Mode Support to pgcrypto |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-01-28 10:31:48 | Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature |