From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade: Error out on too many command-line arguments |
Date: | 2019-08-30 14:40:11 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1908301622100.28828@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tom,
>> Could we maintain coverage by adding a TAP test? See 1 liner attached.
>
> Is this issue *really* worth expending test cycles on forevermore?
With this argument consistently applied, postgres code coverage is
consistently weak, with 25% of the code never executed, and 15% of
functions never called. "psql" is abysmal, "libpq" is really weak.
> Test cycles are not free, and I see zero reason to think that a
> check of this sort would ever catch any bugs. Now, if you had a
> way to detect that somebody had forgotten the case in some new
> program, that would be interesting.
It could get broken somehow, and the test would catch it?
That would be the only command which tests this feature?
This is a TAP test, not a test run on basic "make check". The cost is not
measurable: pgbench 533 TAP tests run in 5 wallclock seconds, and this
added test does not change that much.
Now, if you say you are against it, then it is rejected…
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-30 14:47:48 | Re: pg_upgrade: Error out on too many command-line arguments |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-30 13:54:13 | Re: pg_upgrade: Error out on too many command-line arguments |