* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > 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.
Understood. > 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. Ok, I like that quite a bit better and will give it a shot, but if it doesn't work, I'll revert it immediately. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature