Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> It happens that the following regression tests are failing if they are
>>> run on a database not named "regression":
>> This does not seem like a bug to me, although maybe we'd better update the
>> documentation to specify that you need to use a DB named regression.
> At the same thing, supporting it might not cost anything.
Well, changing these specific tests today might not be terribly expensive,
but what is it that prevents more such tests from being committed next
week? Perhaps by somebody who feels current_database() should be included
in code coverage, for example?
More generally, we never have and never can promise that the regression
tests pass regardless of environment. If you turn off enable_seqscan,
for instance, you'll get a whole lot of not-terribly-exciting diffs.
I see no particular benefit to promising that the name of the regression
database isn't significant.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
