Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > wrote: > > My proposal is that instead of looking at three hundred lines, you'd > > look for 50 lines of `pg_restore -l` output -- is element XYZ in there > > or not. Quite a bit simpler for the guy adding a new test. This tests > > combinations of pg_dump switches: are we dumping the right set of > > objects. > > My counter-proposal is that we remove the test entirely. It looks > like an unmaintainable and undocumented mess to me, and I doubt > whether the testing value is sufficient to justify the effort of > updating it every time anyone wants to change something in pg_dump.
Considering it turned up multiple serious bugs, particularly in the binary upgrade path, I can't disagree more. If you have a counter proposal which actually results in better test coverage, that'd be fantastic, but I wholly reject the notion that we should be considering reducing our test coverage of pg_dump. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
