Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 03/04/2018 09:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, I think the existing bytea bug is a counterexample to that. If >> someone were to repeat that mistake with, say, UUID, these tests would not >> catch it, because none of them would exercise UUID-vs-something-else. >> For that matter, your statement is false on its face, because even if >> somebody tried to add say uuid-versus-int8, these tests would not catch >> lack of support for that in convert_to_scalar unless the specific case of >> uuid-versus-int8 were added to the tests.
> I suspect we're simply having different expectations what the tests > could/should protect against - my intention was to make sure someone > does not break convert_to_scalar for the currently handled types. I concur that we could use better test coverage for the existing code --- the coverage report is pretty bleak there. But I think we could improve that just by testing with the existing operators. I do not see much use in checking that unsupported cross-type cases fail cleanly, because there isn't a practical way to have full coverage for such a concern. regards, tom lane