Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 21:52:01 -0700
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran@gmail.com>,
	David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
	Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
	"Prabakaran, Vaishnavi" <VaishnaviP@fast.au.fujitsu.com>,
	Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>,
	"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Manuel Kniep <m.kniep@web.de>,
	"fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp" <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	"Iwata, Aya" <iwata.aya@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Message-ID: <20170404045201.eja742vmfu45bf5d@alap3.anarazel.de>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB7nPqTuEb5XFPgk17054FRu_k+AXPWHKBAo7KAHtVSQX0G7Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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