Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> ... I manually filtered
>> out a bunch of non-problems, in particular discarding names that are in
>> per-test schemas; I think it's all right to allow tests that are taking
>> that precaution to do what they like name-wise.
> What if we always did that? That is, create a schema with a name
> corresponding to the .sql filename and make it default, as a
> convention? That might be a smaller and more localised change than
> renaming all these objects. It would also provide a convenient way to
> drop everything wholesale at the end.
There's a lot of objects that we *want* propagated from earlier tests to
later ones, and/or left around to help with pg_dump testing based on the
final state of the regression database. I don't think that just dropping
them all would be an improvement.
It might be possible to identify a set of tests that set up persistent
objects as opposed to ones that don't, but it wouldn't be a trivial
task.
regards, tom lane
