| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: September 2015 Commitfest |
| Date: | 2015-11-02 02:33:28 |
| Message-ID: | 14958.1446431608@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 10/31/15 11:19 AM, Nathan Wagner wrote:
>> I think it would be very useful to just be able to tell the system "fire
>> this up for me so I can test it". I don't think it needs to handle
>> every possible testing scenario, just making it easier to leave up the
>> test postmaster from make check would be very useful, at least to me.
> I've wished that the cluster setup and teardown behavior of pg_regress
> was available outside of pg_regress itself. Would that mostly suffice
> for what you're looking for?
I should think not. pg_regress is not merely not encouraging of outside
connections to the started postmaster; if such is even possible, it's
likely to be regarded as a security bug. What Nathan is looking for is
arguably useful, but I do not think pg_regress should be expected to
support it. It needs to be a different tool, with different security
parameters.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-11-02 02:37:19 | Re: Patent warning about the Greenplum source code |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-11-02 00:41:59 | Re: September 2015 Commitfest |