| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Regression tests vs existing users in an installation |
| Date: | 2016-07-18 01:37:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZf-TodYQJz91bLm8WLsEefNhdJJfM1wn+AnYehadDwoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2016-07-18 02:00:13 | Re: One process per session lack of sharing |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-18 01:34:18 | Re: One process per session lack of sharing |