Re: Improve error reporting in 027_stream_regress test
| От | Bilal Yavuz |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Improve error reporting in 027_stream_regress test |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAN55FZ0_EZ4DpUETwyeNnt9bkSZj6csZ1-GjU6SPR63xpwpAYg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Improve error reporting in 027_stream_regress test (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 07:37, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 03:33:30PM +0300, Bilal Yavuz wrote: > > I applied these feedbacks in v5. I wanted to cover all possible cases > > so I think 0002 might be a bit more complicated than it needs to be. > > > > What do you think about the current implementation? > > I'm finding that a bit bloated. My own attempt is the attached, which > is much simpler, returning only array for the lines of @tail and > @head. I am not sure to see the use-case in favor of enforcing the > line count for the caller of the new routine based on what's on this > thread, so I have left that out to simplify the patch. I liked your version more. My only complaint was removing the line_count argument but we can easily add it back when we need it. > v5 had a mistake: slurp_file() on the full diffs should be removed > once we dump only the tail and head. It is true that 027 would add an > extra line if regression.diffs is too short when written this way, but > the information reported is the same, while keeping the code simpler > in 027. A portion of the comment at the top of the block printing the > diffs could be removed: with the limitation of lines in place we don't > bloat the output anymore. You are right, thank you for handling that. v6 LGTM. -- Regards, Nazir Bilal Yavuz Microsoft
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: