Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Ian Barwick <i...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > A simple schedule to demonstrate this is available; execute from the > > src/test/regress/ directory like this: > > > > ./pg_regress \ > > --temp-install=./tmp_check \ > > --top-builddir=../../.. \ > > --dlpath=. \ > > --schedule=./schedule_ddl_deparse_demo > > I haven't read the code, but this concept seems good to me. Excellent, thanks. > It has the unfortunate weakness that a difference could exist during > the *middle* of the regression test run that is gone by the *end* of > the run, but our existing pg_upgrade testing has the same weakness, so > I guess we can view this as one more reason not to be too aggressive > about having regression tests drop the unshared objects they create. Agreed. Not dropping objects also helps test pg_dump itself; the normal procedure there is run the regression tests, then pg_dump the regression database. Objects that are dropped never exercise their corresponding pg_dump support code, which I think is a bad thing. I think we should institute a policy that regression tests must keep the objects they create; maybe not all of them, but at least a sample large enough to cover all interesting possibilities. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
