* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >>> But at this point I think Peter's complaint has some force to it, and that
> >>> what you ought to do is revert the testing patch. You can have another go
> >>> after beta1.
>
> >> Are you suggesting commiting to still-9.6-HEAD post-beta1? I took
> >> Peter's comment as suggesting that adding the tests would have to wait
> >> til after we branched 9.6, as we do for features.
> >>
> >> I'd really like to have these tests included as that will make them
> >> available to others more easily to add on to, and I'm certainly planning
> >> to continue adding tests until I get pg_dump.c's coverage a lot better.
> >> That seems like the perfect kind of effort that should be happening
> >> right now- adding more tests and working to make sure that what's been
> >> committed is correct (and fixing it when it isn't, as discovered by the
> >> test suite with transforms and casts...).
>
> > I think what he's suggesting right now is that you revert the patch
> > that is turning the BF red right before beta. We can iron out what
> > else to do later.
>
> Yes. I have no objection to adding more test cases post-beta1, but
> I'd like to have the buildfarm green through the weekend. This isn't
> the best time to be debugging-by-buildfarm.
Understood.
> If you like, you can try the @contrib_excludes addition that was mentioned
> before and see if that fixes it. But if it doesn't, it's time to cut our
> losses.
Ok, I like that quite a bit better and will give it a shot, but if it
doesn't work, I'll revert it immediately.
Thanks!
Stephen