Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01)
| От | Andrew Dunstan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4F538E0B.9010600@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/20/2012 10:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Greg Smith<greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> The updated patch looks good, marking as 'Ready for Committer' >> Patches without documentation are never ready for commit. For this one, I'm >> not sure if that should be in the form of a reference example in contrib, or >> just something that documents that the hook exists and what the ground rules >> are for grabbing it. > Hooks are frequently not documented, and we only sometimes even bother > to include an example in contrib. We should probably at least have a > working example for testing purposes, though, whether or not we end up > committing it. > I'm just looking at this patch, and I agree, it should be testable. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a module or set of modules for demonstrating and testing bits of the API that we expose. src/test/api or something similar? I'm not sure how we'd automate a test for this case, though. I guess we could use something like pg_logforward and have a UDP receiver catch the messages and write them to a file. Something like that should be possible to rig up in Perl. But all that seems a lot of work at this stage of the game. So the question is do we want to commit this patch without it? cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: