Re: [v9.2] DROP statement reworks

2011/10/19 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
>> And, also I added regression test cases to detect these code paths,
>> because some of object types does not cover the case when it was
>> dropped.
>
> These regression tests seem busted to me.  First, I applied the part 2
> patch.  The regression tests failed.  Then, I applied the part 3
> patch.  Then they passed.  So far so good.  Then, I took the
> regression test portion of the part 2 and part 3 patches and applied
> just those.  That also fails.
>
Sorry, it was my misses when I added regression test cases.

> Can we come up with a set of regression tests that:
>
> - passes on unmodified master
> - still passes with the part 2 patch applied
> - also passes with both the part 2 and part 3 patches applied
>
> AIUI, this patch isn't supposed to be changing any behavior, just
> consolidating the code.
>
The attached patches are:

part-1: only regression test of DROP [IF EXISTS] on unmodified master
part-2: drop statement reworks that uses T_DropStmt
part-3: drop statement reworks for other object classes

Unfortunately, the part-3 had to change regression test portion a bit,
because ...
- Unmodified master does not print ", skipping" when we tried to
drop non-existence operator class with IF EXISTS.
- Unmodified master raised an error, not notice, when we tried to
drop non-existence operator family with IF EXISTS.
Is it a bug to be fixed, isn't it?

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>