On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote: > > I spent awhile hacking on this, and made a lot of things better, but > > I'm still very unhappy about the state of the comments. > > I made another pass over this, working on the comments and the docs, > and changing the view name to "pg_hba_file_rules". I think this version > is committable if people are satisfied with that name. > Thanks for working on the patch. I am fine with the "pg_hba_file_rules" name. I have to improve in writing better comments after checking the attached patch. I will improve the comments in further patch submissions to community. > One loose end is what to do about testing. I did not much like the > proposed TAP tests. We could just put "select count(*) > 0 from > pg_hba_file_rules" into the main regression tests, which would provide > some code coverage there, if not very much guarantee that what the view > outputs is sane. > I added the test in main regression test to the patch which you shared based on the mail of creating separate tests for system views in [1]. The attached needs to be applied on top the patch shared in [1]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19359.1485723741%40sss.pgh.pa.us Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia
pg_hba_rules_16.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
