Hello Tom,
>> Could we maintain coverage by adding a TAP test? See 1 liner attached.
>
> Is this issue *really* worth expending test cycles on forevermore?
With this argument consistently applied, postgres code coverage is
consistently weak, with 25% of the code never executed, and 15% of
functions never called. "psql" is abysmal, "libpq" is really weak.
> Test cycles are not free, and I see zero reason to think that a
> check of this sort would ever catch any bugs. Now, if you had a
> way to detect that somebody had forgotten the case in some new
> program, that would be interesting.
It could get broken somehow, and the test would catch it?
That would be the only command which tests this feature?
This is a TAP test, not a test run on basic "make check". The cost is not
measurable: pgbench 533 TAP tests run in 5 wallclock seconds, and this
added test does not change that much.
Now, if you say you are against it, then it is rejected…
--
Fabien.
