[HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nikolay Shaplov
Subject [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions
Date
Msg-id 2615372.orqtEn8VGB@x200m
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Tests for reloptions
List pgsql-hackers
This thread continues discussion at
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170903094543.kkqdbdjuxwa5z6ji@alvherre.pgsql
(Shortly: I refactored reloptions code, Alvaro offered to commit tests before 
the full patch)

> I see that this patch adds a few tests for reloptions, for instance in
> bloom.  I think we should split this in at least two commits, one that
> adds those tests before the functionality change, so that they can be
> committed in advance, verify that the buildfarm likes it with the
> current code, and verify the coverage.

This sounds as a really good idea.

Though I have several questions. This tests also covers some functionality 
that were introduced only in my patch:

1. Forbid SET and RESET options where they should not be changed
2. Forbid creating tables with toasts options when no toast table is created
3. Split StdRdOptions into HeapOptions and ToastOptions and forbid uising Heap 
specific options for toast.

In the patch I've attached I've commented out this functionality. But I am not 
quite sure that it is good idea to commit it this way in master.

May be it would be good to make 1-3 as a separate patches and bring it's tests 
with, as a separate commit. But...

2nd can be easily ported to master. It does not depend much on my reloptions 
patch as far as I remember.

It would be insane to port 1st feature to master. It highly integrated with 
reloptions mechanism, It would require complete reimplementation of this 
feature using old reloptions tools. I totally do not want to do it 

The 3rd functionality came from philosophy one relation-type -- one options 
catalog, that was implemented in my reloptions patch. It is not really needed 
in master without the full patch. With some efforts I think it can be made as a 
separate patch, thought I would also try to avoid it if possible.


So the questions still is: should we commit not existent functionality tests 
commented, uncomented but with no proper error response in expected output, or 
just remove these tests from this patch?

-- 
Do code for fun. Can do it for money (Perl & C/C++ ~10h/week)
-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chris Travers
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_rewind to skip config files
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica/ proof of concept