Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

David Fetter <david@fetter.org>

From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Pavel Baros <baros.p@seznam.cz>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-06-27T19:40:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:52:17PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 20:24 +0200, Pavel Baros wrote:
> 
> > ... also you can look at enclosed patch.
> 
> No tests == no patch

This isn't quite how I'd have phrased it, and it would be nice if
nobody phrased advice quite this way. :)

In order for a patch to be accepted, it needs to include both SGML
docs if it changes user-visible behavior, and tests for any new
behaviors it has created.  This is the project standard, and it or
something very like it is a good standard for just about any project,
as it gives people some ways to test intent vs. effect.

Do you want some help with creating same?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate