Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <> wrote:
>> I'm coming to the conclusion that the only thing that will make this
>> materially better in the long run is automatic enforcement of a convention
>> about what role names may be created in the regression tests.  See my
>> response to Stephen just now for a concrete proposal.

> We could also do this by loading a C module during the regression
> tests, which seems maybe less ugly than adding a GUC.

Meh, I'm not convinced.  As Michael points out, arranging for such a
module to get loaded in an installcheck context would be difficult ---
maybe not impossible, but complicated.  Also, we'd have to add hook
function calls in all the places it would need to get control; most
of those places would probably be one-off hooks with no other conceivable
use.  And we'd still need to have a GUC, because I think it's inevitable
that we'd need to be able to turn off the restrictions for specific
tests.  So that seems like a lot of work and complication just to make
a GUC be custom to some undocumented extension rather than built-in.
If we had no other debugging GUCs then there might be some point in
rejecting this one, but we have a bunch:

> I don't particularly like your suggestion of spooky action at a
> distance between force_parallel_mode and regression_test_mode.  That
> just seems kooky.

It's certainly a judgment call as to which way is cleaner, but I don't
understand your objection.  There are plenty of ways in which multiple
GUCs determine a given behavior already.  Also, breaking this behavior
into two variables would let us document the user-useful behavior (do
this to test parallel safety of functions) in a different place from the
developer-useful behavior (do this to make EXPLAIN lie to you, which
surely has no possible use except for regression testing).

Possibly a single "regression_test_mode" variable is a bad idea and
we should instead have distinct developer-oriented GUCs for each special
behavior we decide we need.  I'm not particularly set on that, but
to me it seems like less of a mess to have just one.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to