Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEYLb_VQxpafA_3d5ZfQOcVPxD4jbMjWuDLxj4nS=DEBy-X6QQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Is there anything that I could be doing to help bring this patch closer to a committable state? I'm thinking of the tests in particular - do you suppose it's acceptable to commit them more or less as-is? The standard for testing contrib modules seems to be a bit different, as there is a number of other cases where an impedance mistmatch with pg_regress necessitates doing things differently. So, the sepgsql tests, which I understand are mainly to test the environment that the module is being built for rather than the code itself, are written as a shellscript than uses various selinux tools. There is also a Perl script that uses DBD::Pg to benchmark intarray, for example. Now that we have a defacto standard python driver, something that we didn't have a couple of years ago, it probably isn't terribly unreasonable to keep the tests in Python. They'll still probably need some level of clean-up, to cut back on some of the tests that are redundant. Some of the tests are merely fuzz tests, which are perhaps a bit questionable. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: