Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including >>> certain tests in check-world by default is that the omitted tests are >>> security hazards, so a developer or buildfarm owner should review each >>> one before deciding whether to activate it on their machine.
> Other than PG_TEST_EXTRA=wal_consistency_checking, they have the same hazard: > they treat the loopback interface as private, so anyone with access to > loopback interface ports can hijack the test. I'd be fine with e.g. > PG_TEST_EXTRA=private-lo activating all of those. We don't gain by inviting > the tester to review the tests to rediscover this common factor. Yeah, I could live with something like that from the security standpoint. Not sure if it helps Nazir's use-case though. Maybe we could invent categories that can be used in place of individual test names? For now, PG_TEST_EXTRA="needs-private-lo slow" would cover the territory of "all", and I think it'd be very seldom that we'd have to invent new categories here (though maybe I lack imagination today). regards, tom lane