On 02.10.23 09:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
1) Remove useless entries from "unlike" lists. Runs that are not
listed in "like" don't need to be excluded in "unlike".
2) Ensure there is always a "like" list, even if it is empty. This
makes the test more self-documenting.
I also added c
On 10.10.23 10:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 09.10.23 11:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I tried this out. I agree it's a good change. BTW, this made me
realize that "unlike" is not a good name: maybe it should be called
"except".
right
I would add quotes to the words "like" and "unlike" there.
're writing
a test about the tests, which would be a bit weird.) The result is
approximately the same.
From ec4380986519f966303c14ea49223f0cf7729220 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:54:43 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2] Clean up some pg_dump tests
1) Remove useless
I tried this out. I agree it's a good change. BTW, this made me
realize that "unlike" is not a good name: maybe it should be called
"except".
On 2023-Oct-02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> + if (!defined($tests{$test}->{like}))
> + {
> + diag "missing like
0 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 08:58:23 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Clean up some pg_dump tests
1) Remove useless entries from "unlike" lists. Runs that are not
listed in "like" don't need to be excluded in "unlike".
2) Ensure there is always
