> why do you have other stuff in the search_path? That seems > to cause all kinds of risks of accidentally interfering with > assorted test cases.
That was a workaround that seemed to work with everything, except the earthdistance testcase. * If I create the extension in the public schema, that interferes with multiple postgres tests * If I create the extension in a specific schema, that doesn't change any postgres test outputs, but then I can't run the existing tests of the extension itself on the same installation, as it expects the extension in the search path * If I create the extension in a specific schema, and add it to the search path, only the earthdistance testcase has failures > I think this is breaking the test, because part of the point is > to check that there's not anything installed outside the public > schema (until we tell it to, further down). I see. Further down the next checks specifically only test the `public` and `c` schemas, but `c` doesn't exist at this point, it is only created later. This seemed like an easy and safe fix based on this, I assumed it is also okay to limit the earlier test to the same schemas. Is there a reason why the later checks are more specific, shouldn't we remove the `public.*` from the later tests then? There are of course other solutions to my problem, I mainly chose this approach because it looked logical to unify these checks. On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 7:16 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]> writes: > > I attached a simple patch to the test case that modifies it to only > > list objects from the public schema. Part of the test case is already > > limited to the public schema, this patch just aligns the rest to do > > the same. > > > What do you think? > > I think this is breaking the test, because part of the point is > to check that there's not anything installed outside the public > schema (until we tell it to, further down). > > Admittedly, this only checks schemas that are in the search_path, > but why do you have other stuff in the search_path? That seems > to cause all kinds of risks of accidentally interfering with > assorted test cases. > > regards, tom lane
