On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:19:50PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:45:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hmm. The diffs of 0001 are really hard to read. Do you know why this >> is happening? Is that because some code has been moved around? > > Yes, I followed the file convention to put the static functions first and then > the exposed functions, and git-diff makes a terrible mess out of it :(
I'd like to think that not doing such a thing would be more helpful in this case. As the diffs show, anyone is going to have a hard time to figure out if there are any differences in any of those routines, and if these are the origin of a different problem. A second thing is that this is going to make back-patching unnecessarily harder. > There's no functional change apart from exposing some functions and moving > some > in another file, so I though it's still ok to keep some consistency. There > isn't much changes backpatched in that file, so it shouldn't create more > maintenance burden than simply splitting the file. A lot of files do that already. History clarity matters most IMO. > As I mentioned in my initial email, I intentionally didn't add any test in the > patchset yet, except the exact same coverage for the new view as there's for > pg_hba_file_rules. Ideally I'd like to add tests only once, to cover both 002 > and 0003. But I don't want to waste time for that right now, especially since > no one seems to be interested in 0003. But that would be helpful for 0002. I think that we should have a bit more coverage in this area. pg_hba_file_rules could gain in coverage, additionally, but this is unrelated to what you are proposing here.. >> Does this pass >> on Windows where pg_regress sets some mappings for SSPI when creating >> one or more roles? > > According to CI and cfbot yes. E.g. > https://cirrus-ci.com/github/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commitfest/37/3558. > Note that the failed runs are the warning I mentioned for mingw32 and the POC > 0004, which is now fixed. Interesting, I would not have expected that. I may poke at that more seriously. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
