Horton

Re: Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-07-18T01:37:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I'm coming to the conclusion that the only thing that will make this
> materially better in the long run is automatic enforcement of a convention
> about what role names may be created in the regression tests.  See my
> response to Stephen just now for a concrete proposal.

We could also do this by loading a C module during the regression
tests, which seems maybe less ugly than adding a GUC.

I don't particularly like your suggestion of spooky action at a
distance between force_parallel_mode and regression_test_mode.  That
just seems kooky.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Move rolenames test out of the core regression tests.

  2. Add an enforcement mechanism for global object names in regression tests.

  3. Fix regression tests to use only global names beginning with "regress_".

  4. Disallow user-created replication origins named "pg_xxx".