Re: numeric_big in make check? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: numeric_big in make check?
Date
Msg-id CB66FBCC-3D99-4046-83CF-EAD251A4B225@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: numeric_big in make check?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: numeric_big in make check?
List pgsql-hackers
> On 19 Feb 2024, at 12:48, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:

>> To make sure it's executed and not silently breaks, is it time to add this to
>> the regular make check?
>
> Or we could just flush it.  It's never detected a bug, and I think
> you'd find that it adds zero code coverage (or if not, we could
> fix that in a far more surgical and less expensive manner).

I don't have a problem with that, there isn't much value in keeping it
(especially when not connected to make check so that it actually runs).  That
also means we can remove two make targets which hadn't been ported to meson to
get us a hair closer to parity.

--
Daniel Gustafsson


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory consumed by paths during partitionwise join planning
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes