Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>>> But at this point I think Peter's complaint has some force to it, and that
>>> what you ought to do is revert the testing patch. You can have another go
>>> after beta1.
>> Are you suggesting commiting to still-9.6-HEAD post-beta1? I took
>> Peter's comment as suggesting that adding the tests would have to wait
>> til after we branched 9.6, as we do for features.
>>
>> I'd really like to have these tests included as that will make them
>> available to others more easily to add on to, and I'm certainly planning
>> to continue adding tests until I get pg_dump.c's coverage a lot better.
>> That seems like the perfect kind of effort that should be happening
>> right now- adding more tests and working to make sure that what's been
>> committed is correct (and fixing it when it isn't, as discovered by the
>> test suite with transforms and casts...).
> I think what he's suggesting right now is that you revert the patch
> that is turning the BF red right before beta. We can iron out what
> else to do later.
Yes. I have no objection to adding more test cases post-beta1, but
I'd like to have the buildfarm green through the weekend. This isn't
the best time to be debugging-by-buildfarm.
If you like, you can try the @contrib_excludes addition that was mentioned
before and see if that fixes it. But if it doesn't, it's time to cut our
losses.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
