From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran@gmail.com>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
Cc: Prabakaran, Vaishnavi <VaishnaviP@fast.au.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>
Cc: Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Manuel Kniep <m.kniep@web.de>
Cc: fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Iwata, Aya <iwata.aya@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 21:52:01 -0700
Message-ID: <20170404045201.eja742vmfu45bf5d@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB7nPqTuEb5XFPgk17054FRu_k+AXPWHKBAo7KAHtVSQX0G7Vw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3200d6d3-a82a-4778-b021-475b3adbe4dc@manitou-mail.org>
<41685247-0a06-1fbb-d731-1b2b6bd8df8e@pgmasters.net>
<CAOoUkxS31gTRwYr9N01YidUUoAwy0jU+3VbgGCtuBJHRTpMmFg@mail.gmail.com>
<20170403210501.6nbmlkg6g3ch7lew@alap3.anarazel.de>
<CAOoUkxQB+TvNJTJqUq7E32WQL240V+PmYL1Ebma0c5PdSJ+qkg@mail.gmail.com>
<20170403232613.dcd4rzbhad2nkh2p@alap3.anarazel.de>
<CAB7nPqTuEb5XFPgk17054FRu_k+AXPWHKBAo7KAHtVSQX0G7Vw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 2017-04-04 08:57:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2017-04-04 09:24:23 +1000, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote:
> >> Just quickly, Is it not ok to consider only the code patch for this CF
> >> without test patch?
> >
> > I'd say no, it's not acceptable. This is too much new code for it not
> > to be tested.
>
> Doesn't it depend actually?
Well, I didn't make a general statement, I made one about this patch.
And this would add a significant bunch of untested code, and it'll likely
take years till it gets decent coverage outside.
> In the case of this patch, it seems to me that we would have a far
> better portable set of tests if we had a dedicated set of subcommands
> available at psql level, particularly for Windows/MSVC.
That's a really large scope creep imo. Adding a bunch of user-facing
psql stuff doesn't compare in complexity to running a test across
platforms. We can just do that from regess.c or such, if that ends up
being a problem..
> If that's a requirement for this patch so let it be. I am not saying that tests
> are not necessary. They are of course, but in this case having a bit
> more infrastructure would be more be more helpful for users and the
> tests themselves.
I'm not following.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, michael.paquier@gmail.com, vaishnaviprabakaran@gmail.com, david@pgmasters.net, craig@2ndquadrant.com, daniel@manitou-mail.org, VaishnaviP@fast.au.fujitsu.com, kommi.haribabu@gmail.com, tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com, dmitigr@gmail.com, m.kniep@web.de, fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, iwata.aya@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
In-Reply-To: <20170404045201.eja742vmfu45bf5d@alap3.anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox