Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes:
>> On 30 Mar 2023, at 20:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Maybe it'd be close enough to expect there to be no roles named
>> "regress_xxx". In combination with
>> -DENFORCE_REGRESSION_TEST_NAME_RESTRICTIONS, that would prevent us
>> from accidentally leaving stuff behind, and we could hope that it doesn't
>> cause false failures in real installations.
> Would that check be always on or only when pg_regress is compiled with
> -DENFORCE_REGRESSION_TEST_NAME_RESTRICTIONS?
I envisioned it as being on all the time.
>> Another idea could be for pg_regress to enforce that "select count(*)
>> from pg_roles" gives the same answer before and after the test run.
> That wouldn't prevent the contents of pg_roles to have changed though, so
> there
> is a (slim) false positive risk with that no?
Well, we could do "select rolname from pg_roles order by 1" and
actually compare the results of the two selects. That might be
advisable anyway, in order to produce a complaint with useful
detail when there is something wrong.
regards, tom lane
