Here are my takeaways from the previous discussions: * there *is* interest in testing * we shouldn't take it too far * there are already tests being written under `src/test/modules`, but without a consistent way of describing expectations and displaying results * no tool was chosen
If we were to use this tool, would the community want to vendor the framework in the Postgres repository, or keep it in a separate repository that produces a versioned shared library? On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:57 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:38 AM Adam Berlin <aber...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > During the unconference at PGCon in Ottawa, I asked about writing C-based > > tests for Postgres. There was interest in trying a tool and also some > > hesitation to depend on a third-party library. So, I wrote a tool that > I'd > > like to contribute to Postgres. I’ve been calling it cexpect [1]. > > Cool, thanks! > > > Rather than post a patch, I'd rather start a conversation first. I'm > guessing > > there are some improvements that we'd want to make (for example: the > > Makefile) before commiting a patch. Let's iterate on improvements before > > creating a formal patch. > > Just to mention, there were similar discussions already in the past ([1], > [2]), > with some concerns being raised, but looks like without any visible > results. > > [1]: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D2heu%2B5zwB65jWap3XY-UP6PpJZiKLQRSV2UQH9BmVRXQ%40mail.gmail.com > [2]: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/Pine.LNX.4.58.0410111044030.14840%40linuxworld.com.au >
