On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 09:49:32PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m??n, 2012-03-19 at 02:35 +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I see your point of view. I suppose I can privately hold onto the test
> > suite, since it might prove useful again.
>
> I would still like to have those tests checked in, but not run by
> default, in case someone wants to hack on this particular feature again.
Agreed. Also, patch review becomes materially smoother when the author
includes comprehensive tests. When a usage I wish to verify already appears
in the submitted tests, that saves time. I respect the desire to keep regular
"make check" lean, but not if it means comprehensive tests get written to be
buried in the mailing list archives or never submitted at all.
