On 2022-Mar-07, Greg Stark wrote:
> I don't think this is worth spending time adding tests for. I get what
> you're saying that this is at least semi-intentional behaviour and
> desirable behaviour so it should have tests ensuring that it continues
> to work. But it's not documented behaviour and
On 6/30/22 16:16, Jacob Champion wrote:
> [CFM hat] Since you feel strongly about the patch, and we're short on
> time before the commitfest starts, I have re-registered this. That way
> there can be an explicit decision as opposed to a pocket veto by me.
[CFM hat] Okay, with another CF come and g
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 9:04 PM Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от четверг, 30 июня 2022 г. 06:47:48 MSK пользователь Nikolay Shaplov
> написал:
>
> > Hi! I am surely feel this patch is important. I have bigger patch
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3536/ and this test makes sense as a
>
В письме от четверг, 30 июня 2022 г. 06:47:48 MSK пользователь Nikolay Shaplov
написал:
> Hi! I am surely feel this patch is important. I have bigger patch
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3536/ and this test makes sense as a
> part of big work of options refactoring,
>
> I am also was st
В письме от четверг, 30 июня 2022 г. 00:38:48 MSK пользователь Jacob Champion
написал:
> This patch is hanging open in the March commitfest. There was a bit of
> back-and-forth on whether it should be rejected, but no clear statement on
> the issue, so I'm going to mark it Returned with Feedback.
This patch is hanging open in the March commitfest. There was a bit of
back-and-forth on whether it should be rejected, but no clear statement on the
issue, so I'm going to mark it Returned with Feedback. If you still feel
strongly about this patch, please feel free to re-register it in the July
В письме от понедельник, 7 марта 2022 г. 20:04:49 MSK пользователь Greg Stark
написал:
> I don't think this is worth spending time adding tests for. I get what
> you're saying that this is at least semi-intentional behaviour and
> desirable behaviour so it should have tests ensuring that it contin
I don't think this is worth spending time adding tests for. I get what
you're saying that this is at least semi-intentional behaviour and
desirable behaviour so it should have tests ensuring that it continues
to work. But it's not documented behaviour and the test is basically
testing that the impl
I'd like to suggest a patch for reloption regression tests.
This patch tests case, that can be rarely met in actual life: when reloptions
have some illegal option set (as a result of malfunction or extension
downgrade or something), and user tries to remove this option by using RESET.
Current po
