From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fix schema ownership for database owner on first |
Date: | 2004-06-08 16:00:02 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.60.0406081752030.23621@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
>> Ok, so I guess I can use regressionuser[123], regression[123] as names in
>> the validation. Writing tests cases is not fun, so I tried to put some fun
>> by using these characters.
>
> I don't really think it's necessary for the regression tests to test
> this functionality.
Hummm... an interesting view, indeed. It fits neither my experience of
programming nor my experience of computer security;-)
It taught me that anything which is not tested does not work or will not
work later on because someone will break some assumption.
On the other hand, I understand that heavy test on "make check" are not
necessary. So maybe some "make big_check" or the like?
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-08 17:13:01 | Re: cost_nonsequential_access() |
Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2004-06-08 15:50:58 | Re: cost_nonsequential_access() |