From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Marina Polyakova <m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Conflict between regression tests namespace & transactions due to recent changes |
Date: | 2023-05-15 23:19:04 |
Message-ID: | ZGK96KZaT1DUKGgp@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 11:23:18PM +0300, Marina Polyakova wrote:
> On 2023-05-15 19:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm. I'd actually fix the blame on transactions.sql here. Creating
>> a table named as generically as "abc" is horribly bad practice in
>> a set of concurrent tests. namespace.sql is arguably okay, since
>> it's creating that table name in a private schema.
>>
>> I'd be inclined to fix this by doing s/abc/something-else/g in
>> transactions.sql.
>
> Maybe use a separate schema for all new objects in the transaction test?..
> See diff_set_tx_schema.patch.
Sure, you could do that to bypass the failure (without the "public"
actually?), leaving non-generic names around. Still I'd agree with
Tom here and just rename the objects to something more in line with
the context of the test to make things a bit more greppable. These
could be renamed as transaction_tab or transaction_view, for example.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2023-05-15 23:43:37 | Re: [DOC] Update ALTER SUBSCRIPTION documentation v2 |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-05-15 22:30:54 | Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN |