On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I took a look at this with a view to committing it but on examination
>>> I'm not sure this is the best way to proceed. The proposed text
>>> documents that the tests should be run in a database called
>>> regression, but the larger documentation chapter of which this section
>>> is a part never explains how to run them anywhere else, so it feels a
>>> bit like telling a ten-year-old not to burn out the clutch.
>>>
>>> The bit about not changing enable_* probably belongs, if anywhere, in
>>> section 30.2, on test evaluation, rather than here.
>> And what about the attached? I have moved all the content to 30.2, and
>> added two paragraphs: one about the planner flags, the other about the
>> database used.
>> Regards,
>
> Well, it doesn't really address my first concern, which was that you
> talk about running the tests in a database named regression, but
> that's exactly what "make check" does and it's unclear how you would
> do anything else without modifying the source code. It's not the
> purpose of the documentation to tell you all the ways that you could
> break things if you patch the tree. I also don't want to document
> exactly which tests would fail if you did hack things like that; that
> documentation is likely to become outdated.
>
> I think the remaining points you raise are worth mentioning. I'm
> attaching a patch with my proposed rewording of your changes. I made
> the section about configuration parameters a bit more generic and
> adjusted the phrasing to sound more natural in English, and I moved
> your mention of the other issues around a bit. What do you think of
> this version?
The part about the planning parameter looks good, thanks. The places
used to mention the databases used also makes more sense. Thanks for
your input.
--
Michael