Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > One downside of the plugin is that any users willing to do make > installcheck would need to install it as well. Not really. If the only purpose of the plugin is to verify that we're not creating regression

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-18 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 7/15/16 6:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> We've talked before about how the regression tests should be circumspect >> about what role names they create/drop, so as to avoid possibly blowing >> up an installation's existing users during

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 7/15/16 6:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > We've talked before about how the regression tests should be circumspect > about what role names they create/drop, so as to avoid possibly blowing > up an installation's existing users during "make installcheck". I'm not particularly sure that that is a

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-18 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > We could also do this by loading a C module during the regression > tests, which seems maybe less ugly than adding a GUC. > I don't particularly

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-17 Thread Robert Haas
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
I've gone ahead and pushed a patch that does all of the cosmetic renamings needed to clean up the global-object-names situation. I've not done anything yet about those special cases in the rolenames test, since it's open for discussion exactly what to do there. I figured that this patch was

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-16 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> We've talked before about how the regression tests should be circumspect >> about what role names they create/drop, so as to avoid possibly blowing >> up an installation's existing users during "make installcheck". In >>

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-16 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> One could certainly argue that these are safe enough because nobody would >> ever create real roles by those names anyway. I'm not very comfortable >> with that though; if we believe that, why did we go to the

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-16 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > We've talked before about how the regression tests should be circumspect > about what role names they create/drop, so as to avoid possibly blowing > up an installation's existing users during "make installcheck". In > particular I believe there was

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-16 Thread Greg Stark
On 16 Jul 2016 12:59 pm, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > > Thanks for doing this. +1 Though I might highlight this as the kind of issue that a bug tracker would help avoid falling through the cracks and make visible to newcomers. > I am -1 for dropping the tests. We

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > We've talked before about how the regression tests should be circumspect > about what role names they create/drop, so as to avoid possibly blowing > up an installation's existing users during "make installcheck". In >

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > We've talked before about how the regression tests should be circumspect > about what role names they create/drop, so as to avoid possibly blowing > up an installation's existing users during "make installcheck". In > particular I believe there was consensus that such names

[HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2016-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
We've talked before about how the regression tests should be circumspect about what role names they create/drop, so as to avoid possibly blowing up an installation's existing users during "make installcheck". In particular I believe there was consensus that such names should begin with, or at