On 11/10/21 09:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>>> On 10 Nov 2021, at 13:37, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> ..but I wonder what's the *benefit* of removing those includes. IOW, what's
>>> the reason not to simply drop the patch?
>> I think the value is mostly neatnikism, the actual
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:53 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, that last was pretty much my reaction. I don't know enough about
> Perl to be sure how much an unused import costs, but I suspect you're
> right that it won't be measurable in context, considering that most of
> these test scripts run at lea
Tom Lane writes:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>>> On 10 Nov 2021, at 13:37, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> ..but I wonder what's the *benefit* of removing those includes. IOW, what's
>>> the reason not to simply drop the patch?
>
>> I think the value is mostly neatnikism, the actual effect on runtim
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 10 Nov 2021, at 13:37, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> ..but I wonder what's the *benefit* of removing those includes. IOW, what's
>> the reason not to simply drop the patch?
> I think the value is mostly neatnikism, the actual effect on runtime is
> unlikely to be meas
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 6:07 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Nov-10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > I would not have bothered changing things if the names of the modules
> > were the same across stable branches to minimize merge conflicts.
> >
> > However, everything has changed on HEAD, so the
> On 10 Nov 2021, at 13:37, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Nov-10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> I would not have bothered changing things if the names of the modules
>> were the same across stable branches to minimize merge conflicts.
>>
>> However, everything has changed on HEAD, so there is
On 2021-Nov-10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I would not have bothered changing things if the names of the modules
> were the same across stable branches to minimize merge conflicts.
>
> However, everything has changed on HEAD, so there is a good argument
> for simplifying the tests as you are propos
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 09:48:30PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> While trying to add some new tests, I found that
> PostgreSQL::Test::Utils is not required. I felt
> PostgreSQL::Test::Utils can be removed from a lot of tap tests which
> do not require it. I removed it, ran the tests and found the tests
changes for it.
If this import can be removed, kindly accept the attached patch for
the same.
Regards,
Vignesh
From 2767effd2ef88fa82d830d877d1fe3b349b0683a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vigneshwaran C
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 15:12:45 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v1] Removed unused import modules from tap
