On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:46:53AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I was imagining that pg_regress could contain a function that
> issues some predefined queries and complains if the results
> aren't empty. It already has the ability to issue commands
> to the cluster-under-test (for the initial CREATE D
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 08:27:40AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-26 Th 22:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Maybe we need to enforce this at some other level than the tests
>>> themselves, perhaps in pg_regress?
>> Yeah, that seems like a better way to go. Then it would
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 08:27:40AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2023-01-26 Th 22:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:08:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Is it worth checking for leftover regress_xxx tablespaces as well as
> >>> roles?
> >> Guess so
On 2023-01-26 Th 22:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:08:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Is it worth checking for leftover regress_xxx tablespaces as well as
>>> roles?
>> Guess so. If this is to be applied to everything that fails under the
>> naming r
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:08:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is it worth checking for leftover regress_xxx tablespaces as well as
>> roles?
> Guess so. If this is to be applied to everything that fails under the
> naming restrictions, there could be a point in doing the
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:08:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah ... if we put it into an existing script, somebody will blindly
> add more tests after it someday. I suggest calling it "test_cleanup"
> to pair with "test_setup".
>
> Is it worth checking for leftover regress_xxx tablespaces as wel
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:31:06PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:46:07AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Would it be worth adding a check right at the end of the schedule that
>>> makes sure there are no such roles left?
>> Yes, because the a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:31:06PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:46:07AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Would it be worth adding a check right at the end of the schedule that
>> makes sure there are no such roles left?
>
> Yes, because the alternative is to have cirrus
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:46:07AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-26 Th 08:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> On 2023-Jan-24, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>
> >>> Adjust interaction of CREATEROLE with role properties.
> >> This commit
On 2023-01-26 Th 08:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> On 2023-Jan-24, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>> Adjust interaction of CREATEROLE with role properties.
>> This commit broke the ability to run 'make installcheck' repeatedly,
>> because it fails to
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Jan-24, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > Adjust interaction of CREATEROLE with role properties.
>
> This commit broke the ability to run 'make installcheck' repeatedly,
> because it fails to drop role regress_role_limited_admin.
Argh, sorry.
On 2023-Jan-24, Robert Haas wrote:
> Adjust interaction of CREATEROLE with role properties.
This commit broke the ability to run 'make installcheck' repeatedly,
because it fails to drop role regress_role_limited_admin.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.
Adjust interaction of CREATEROLE with role properties.
Previously, a CREATEROLE user without SUPERUSER could not alter
REPLICATION users in any way, and could not set the BYPASSRLS
attribute. However, they could manipulate the CREATEDB property
even if they themselves did not possess it.
With thi
13 matches
Mail list logo
