From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Regression tests vs existing users in an installation |
Date: | 2016-07-16 11:59:30 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTOyJXLtwAG=UDJMuRzMr6=Twk2Op+PeBHfH=wbutckiA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> We've talked before about how the regression tests should be circumspect
> about what role names they create/drop, so as to avoid possibly blowing
> up an installation's existing users during "make installcheck". In
> particular I believe there was consensus that such names should begin
> with, or at least include, "regress". I got around today to instrumenting
> CreateRole to see what names we were actually creating, and was quite
> depressed as to how thoroughly that guideline is being ignored (see
> attached).
Thanks for doing this.
> A more aggressive answer would be to decide we don't need these test cases
> at all and drop them. An advantage of that is that then we could
> configure some buildfarm animal to fail the next time somebody ignores
> the "test role names should contain 'regress'" rule.
I am -1 for dropping the tests. We could just have a CFLAGS that adds
an elog(ERROR) in CreateRole and checks that the created role has a
wanted prefix, or have a plugin that uses the utility hook to do this
filtering.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2016-07-16 12:19:58 | Re: Regression tests vs existing users in an installation |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-07-16 11:41:34 | Re: visibilitymap_clear()s in vacuumlazy.c aren't WAL logged |