| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Dong Wook Lee <sh95119(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_checksum: add test for coverage |
| Date: | 2022-10-12 05:36:29 |
| Message-ID: | Y0ZSXY/bR9t5NPmC@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 01:46:25PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> As written these tests aren't providing more coverage, they run more code but
> they don't ensure that the produced output is correct. If you write these
> tests with validation on the output they will be a lot more interesting.
DongWook, if you are able to reply back to this feedback, please feel
free to send a new patch. For now, I have marked this CF entry as
returned with feedback.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:38:12 | Re: Support for grabbing multiple consecutive values with nextval() |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-10-12 05:35:29 | Re: New Table Access Methods for Multi and Single Inserts |