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