Re: security label support, revised

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On tis, 2010-09-28 at 13:53 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 13:50, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Shigeru HANADA
> >> >> The src/include/catalog/duplicate_oids script reports that 3037 ~
> >> >> 3040 are used two or more times.
> >> >>
> >> >> Though all regression tests finish successfully, should this be
> >> >> fixed ?
> >> >
> >> > Woops. Thanks for the report, fixed. I wish we had a regression test
> >> > that would catch these mistakes. It's easy to forget to run this
> >> > script.
> >>
> >> Could we run the script as part of the regression tests? :-)
> >>
> >> Or if not, could we have the buildfarm run it?
> >
> > I think it should actually be run as part of the regular build. Ever
> > since I started using git and developing like 10 features at once, and
> > other people doing the same, the chances of (hidden) OID conflicts is
> > growing immensely.
>
> Injecting nonessential checks into the build process doesn't seem like
> a good idea to me. Typing 'make' should just do the build. If you
> want to check for breakage, well, that's what 'make check' is for.
>
>
How about having git-hooks execute the script on specific action of our
choice? pre-commit hook sounds like a good place to check for this.

Regards,

(I don't have the complete context of this thread, so please ignore my
ignorance)
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com

singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device