Re: rules regression test fix

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: rules regression test fix
Date: 2002-08-27 22:03:22
Message-ID: 3D6BF72A.8090509@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> This would *not* catch problems created by transient states within a
> test. For example, if some test running parallel with the rules test
> were to create a temp table and put a rule on the temp table, then the
> rules test's display of all rules might show that rule when run in
> parallel ... but there's no bug in either sequential order.
>
> I think it'd be worth trying the cross-check sketched above, if anyone
> has the patience, but beyond that I'm not sure how we might rule out
> problems.
>
> But in reality, if there were such problems I'd be inclined to think
> we'd have heard about them before now.
>

I've seen this kind of problem before, but not often enough to bother
me. I was actually thinking that each parallel test should use its own
schema.

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-27 22:08:40 Re: Proposed GUC Variable
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-08-27 21:55:33 Re: warning fix