Re: Conflict between regression tests namespace & transactions due to recent changes

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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