On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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.
Yeah, if it makes life easier for other people, I say we go for it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
