On 7/1/25 16:24, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 2025, at 20:01, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Jun 2025, at 15:33, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>>> So on the whole I prefer the "void" approach. I'm not dead
>>> set on that though, it's just a niggling worry.
>>
>> I think the likelyhood of it being a problem in practice is pretty slim, but
>> it's still a stronger argument than my "match an API we're still not aligned
>> with". The attached v7 reverts back to void return.
>
> In preparing for concluding this I've attached a v8 which is the patchset in v7
> squashed into a single commit with an attempt at a commit message.
>
Thanks!
> This version has been tested against v17 and v16 where it applies and passes
> all tests (the latter isn't as assuring as it should be since there is a lack
> of testcoverage).
>
Could you elaborate what you mean by lack of test coverage? Doesn't
pg_dump have TAP tests exercising all compression methods? Perhaps it
does not exercise all parts of the code, and we could improve that?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
