On Jul 7, 2008, at 11:54, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Hmm, it is complex area and I'm not sure if anybody on planet know
> correct answer :-). I think that best approach is to keep it as is
> and when a problem occur then it will be fixed.
Regression tests are really important, though.
>>> b) pgTap is something new. Need make a decision if this framework
>>> is acceptable or not.
>> Well, from the point of view of `make installcheck`, it's
>> invisible. I've submitted a talk proposal for pgDay.US on ptTAP.
>> I'm happy to discuss it further here though, if folks are interested.
>
> Yeah, it is invisible, but question is why don't put it as a
> framework to common place. But it is for another discussion.
It is in a common place as a project, on pgFoundry. Whether the core
team wants to use it for testing other parts of PostgreSQL (core or
contrib) and therefore put it in a central location is, as you say, a
separate conversation. It'd be easy to move it in such a case, of
course.
> I understand it but there is parallel project which should solve
> this problem completely I guess in "close" future (2-3years).
> Afterward this module will be obsolete and it will takes times to
> remove it from contrib. It seems to me that have citext in contrib
> only for two releases is not optimal solution.
I guess that'd be the reason to keep it on pgFoundry, but I have two
comments:
* 2-3 years is a *long* time in Internet time.
* There is on guarantee that it will be finished in that time or,
indeed ever (no disrespect to Radek Strnad, it's just there are always
unforeseen issues).
Thanks,
David
