Hello Tom,
> If someone were to put together a TAP test suite that covered all that
> and made for a meaningful improvement in psql's altogether-miserable
> code coverage report[1], I would think that that would be a useful
> expenditure of buildfarm time.
Ok, this is an interesting point.
> What I'm objecting to is paying the overhead for such a suite in order
> to test just this one thing.
Well, it should start somewhere. Once something is running it is easier to
add more tests.
> think that that passes the bang-for-buck test; or in other words, this
> isn't the place I would start if I were creating a TAP suite for psql.
Sure, I would not have started with that either.
Note that from this patch point of view, it is somehow logical to start
testing a given feature when this very feature is being developed...
The summary is that we agree that psql test coverage is abysmal, but you
do not want to bootstrap a better test infrastructure for this particular
and rather special new feature. Ok.
Maybe Corey can submit another patch with the exit 3 test removed.
--
Fabien.