> On 2013/12/06, at 3:52, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> It happens that the following regression tests are failing if they are
>>>> run on a database not named "regression":
>
>>> This does not seem like a bug to me, although maybe we'd better update the
>>> documentation to specify that you need to use a DB named regression.
>
>> At the same thing, supporting it might not cost anything.
>
> Well, changing these specific tests today might not be terribly expensive,
> but what is it that prevents more such tests from being committed next
> week? Perhaps by somebody who feels current_database() should be included
> in code coverage, for example?
>
> More generally, we never have and never can promise that the regression
> tests pass regardless of environment. If you turn off enable_seqscan,
> for instance, you'll get a whole lot of not-terribly-exciting diffs.
> I see no particular benefit to promising that the name of the regression
> database isn't significant.
You got a point here. Classifying that as a "don't do that" in the
documentation is fine for me as well, as I recall that --dbname has been added
to pg_regress only for contrib regression support.
Regards,
--
Michael
(Sent from my mobile phone)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
