From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add regression tests for ROLE (USER) |
Date: | 2013-07-09 10:25:50 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.02.1307091217430.11644@localhost6.localdomain6 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
>> syntax error message conveys a useful information for the user, and that
>> changes to the parser rules do not alter good quality error messages.
>
> It's good to check those things when a feature is implemented. However,
> once it's done, the odds of the bison parser breaking are very low.
I do not know that. When the next version of bison is out (I have 2.5 from
2011 on my laptop, 2.7.1 was released on 2013-04-15), or if a new "super
great acme incredible" drop-in replacement is proposed, you would like to
see the impact, whether positive or negative, it has on error messages
before switching.
> Thus, the benefit of testing that over again thousands of times a day
> is pretty tiny.
Sure, I agree that thousands of times per day is an overkill for syntax
errors. But once in a while would be good, and for that you need to have
them somewhere, and the current status is "nowhere".
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-07-09 10:40:20 | Re: Review: extension template |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-07-09 09:48:42 | Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited |