On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> (I think we could drop the savepoint > >> too, no?) > > > One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to > > explicitly drop the objects which we have created temporarily for this > > test. > > They'll go away anyway at the end of the transaction that the whole > script is wrapped in.
That's right, will remove savepoint. > (But it might be worth choosing slightly less > generic object names, to avoid a conflict against other sub-tests > later in that script.) > The function name and statement name seems okay to me. How about changing the table name to fooarr or arrtest? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
