On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> >> There is also the "must fix" issue with pg_regress.
>> >
>> > Why? My pg_regress runs just fine. If you are talking about 3rd party
>> > modules, I suggested conditional Makefile rules.
>>
>> Because you can either make the simple change to pg_regress that
>> David Fetter sent yesterday and have things continue to work,
>> or you can break a slew of third-party module test suites (and
>> possibly modules, as well) and make a lot of other people do a
>> lot more work, not to mention email -hackers and ask WTF happened
>> because they may well not know.
>>
>> I think that not changing pg_regress is more work for third-party
>> module maintainers *and* more work for the Pg community when
>> those maintainers come asking what happened and for advice on
>> how to fix it.
>
> Well, I was asking why you labeled it "must fix" rather than "should
> fix". I am fine with the pg_regress.c change.
Yeah, if it makes life easier for other people, I say we go for it.
...Robert
