Hello Tom,
If someone were to put together a TAP test suite that covered all that
and made for a meaningful improvement in psql's altogether-miserable
code coverage report[1], I would think that that would be a useful
expenditure of buildfarm time.
Ok, this is an interesting point.
What I'm objecting to is paying the overhead for such a suite in order
to test just this one thing.
Well, it should start somewhere. Once something is running it is easier to
add more tests.
think that that passes the bang-for-buck test; or in other words, this
isn't the place I would start if I were creating a TAP suite for psql.
Sure, I would not have started with that either.
Note that from this patch point of view, it is somehow logical to start
testing a given feature when this very feature is being developed...
The summary is that we agree that psql test coverage is abysmal, but you
do not want to bootstrap a better test infrastructure for this particular
and rather special new feature. Ok.
Maybe Corey can submit another patch with the exit 3 test removed.
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
