On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> 
>> wrote:
>> > Here's an idea.  Why don't we move the function/opclass creation lines
>> > to insert.sql, without the DROPs, and use the same functions/opclasses
>> > in the three tests insert.sql, alter_table.sql, hash_part.sql and
>> > partition_prune.sql, i.e. not recreate what are essentially the same
>> > objects three times?  This also leaves them around for the pg_upgrade
>> > test, which is not a bad thing.
>> That sounds good, but maybe we should go further and move the
>> partitioning tests out of generically-named things like insert.sql
>> altogether and have test names that actually mention partitioning.
> I don't think that's necessary to fix the problem that
> partition_prune_hash.sql file has two expected output files.  If you
> want to propose such a reorganization, feel free, but let's not hijack
> the patch at hand.  For the record, I'm not a fan of the idea.

Fair enough.  I don't think I'm hacking the thread much more than it
was already hijacked; and it was just a thought.  I haven't really
studied the tests well enough to have a really clear idea what a
better organization would look like.  It was just that, for example,
the commit that added hash partitioning added tests to 5 different
files, and some things had to be duplicated as a result.  It sounds
like what you've already done improves that, but I was wondering if
there's a way to do better.  I don't feel super-strongly about it

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to