Paul A Jungwirth <pj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:53 AM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I thought of an easier-to-maintain approach to that part than having >> a reference file. > I just finished my multirange patch (well, "finished" :-), so I might > be willing to sign up for this. Would you scatter these tests around > in the various existing files? Or add a new cross-cutting file (like > opr_sanity etc)? I think adding them to the existing datatype-specific regression tests is probably the way to go. It seems like it'd be more likely that someone writing a new datatype would emulate one of those test scripts than that they'd notice they ought to add a section to some other script. > So you're saying the latter option is to add a new function that > someone can call from SQL, that just round-trips a value through send > + recv? And then call that from an ordinary regress test? Yeah, something roughly like "send_recv_round_trip(any) returns bool", I guess. > I guess the > tests themselves can't define the function (like they define > binary_coercible), because you need to call *_recv from C, so this > would actually be a function we ship and document, right? That seems > within my abilities. I'm not sure we'd want to expose it as a generally available function. One idea is to put it in regress.c, although most of the functions in there today are not created till create_function_1.sql which runs too late to be useful for this. Maybe it's okay as a core function. > Should I move this thread over to pgsql-hackers for this? Yeah. regards, tom lane
