David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Feb 20, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> There is also the "must fix" issue with pg_regress. > > > > Why? My pg_regress runs just fine. If you are talking about 3rd party > > modules, I suggested conditional Makefile rules. > > Because you can either make the simple change to pg_regress that > David Fetter sent yesterday and have things continue to work, > or you can break a slew of third-party module test suites (and > possibly modules, as well) and make a lot of other people do a > lot more work, not to mention email -hackers and ask WTF happened > because they may well not know. > > I think that not changing pg_regress is more work for third-party > module maintainers *and* more work for the Pg community when > those maintainers come asking what happened and for advice on > how to fix it.
Well, I was asking why you labeled it "must fix" rather than "should fix". I am fine with the pg_regress.c change. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers