On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 03:04:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Isaac Morland <isaac.morl...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 14:26, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > wrote: > >> This one would fail the sanity check that all roles created by > >> regression tests need to have names that start with "regress_". > > > Thanks for the correction. Now I feel like I've skipped some of the > > readings! > > Updated patch attached. Informally, I am adopting the regress_* policy for > > all object types. > > That's excessive. The policy Alvaro mentions applies to globally-visible > object names (i.e., database, role, and tablespace names), and it's there > to try to ensure that doing "make installcheck" against a live > installation won't clobber any non-test-created objects. There's no point > in having such a policy within a test database --- its most likely effect > there would be to increase the risk that different test scripts step on > each others' toes. If you feel a need for a name prefix for non-global > objects, use something based on the name of your test script.
But we *are* talking about the role to be created to allow stable output of \df+ , so it's necessary to name it "regress_*". To appease ENFORCE_REGRESSION_TEST_NAME_RESTRICTIONS, and to avoid clobbering global objects during "installcheck". -- Justin