| From: | Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add regression tests for ROLE (USER) |
| Date: | 2013-07-15 14:23:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAEP4nAznaKyEcxMrrsQ8RBvDOAeAXE5=V2AsfM8JpLORuCGaPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6 July 2013 20:25, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Do let me know your view on this second point, so that I can remove these
> tests if so required.
Hi,
Please find attached the updated patch.
It address the first issue regarding reducing the repeated CREATE / DROP
ROLEs.
It still doesn't address the excessive (syntactical) checks tough. I am
still unclear as to how to identify which checks to skip. (As in, although
I have a personal preference of checking everything, my question probably
wasn't clear in my previous email. I was just asking 'how' to know which
checks to not perform.) Should a 'syntax error' in the message be
considered as an unnecessary check? If so, its easier for me to identify
which checks to skip, while creating future tests.
--
Robins Tharakan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| regress_role_v4.patch | application/octet-stream | 24.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-07-15 14:32:10 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Previous Message | Greg Jaskiewicz | 2013-07-15 14:10:51 | Re: Listen/notify across clusters |