Hi,
On 2023-02-14 11:38:06 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> No, nothing specific in mind. But maybe like these:
> - tests for causing obscure errors that would never otherwise be
> reached without something deliberately designed to fail a certain way
I think there's some cases around this that could be usefu, but also a lot
that wouldn't.
> - tests for trivial user errors apparently deemed not worth bloating
> the regression tests with -- e.g. many errorConflictingDefElem not
> being called [1].
I don't think it's worth adding a tests for all of these. The likelihood of
catching a problem seems quite small.
> - timing-related or error tests where some long (multi-second) delay
> is a necessary part of the setup.
IME that's almost always a sign that the test wouldn't be stable anyway.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
