Re: get_object_address support for additional object types
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: get_object_address support for additional object types |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20150316152602.GL29780@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: get_object_address support for additional object types (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: get_object_address support for additional object types
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Actually, there was a bug in the changes of the rule for ALTER EXTENSION > ADD OPERATOR CLASS. I noticed by chance only, and upon testing it > manually I realized I had made a mistake. I then remembered I made the > same bug previously, fixed by 5c5ffee80f35, and I'm not wondering why do > we not have any test for ALTER EXTENSION ADD other than pg_upgrading > some database that contains an extension which uses each command. This > seems pretty dangerous to me, generally speaking ... we should > definitely be testing all these ALTER EXTENSION commands. It'd certainly be great to have more testing in general, but we're not going to be able to include complete code coverage tests in the normal set of regression tests which are run.. What I've been thinking for a while (probably influenced by other discussion) is that we should have the buildfarm running tests for code coverage as those are async from the development process. That isn't to say we shouldn't add more tests to the main regression suite when it makes sense to, we certainly should, but we really need to be looking at code coverage tools and adding tests to improve our test coverage which can be run by the buildfarm animals (or even just a subset of them, if we feel that having all the animals running them would be excessive). Thanks! Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: