On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 03:13:07PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Ian Barwick <i...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > A simple schedule to demonstrate this is available; execute from the > > > src/test/regress/ directory like this: > > > > > > ./pg_regress \ > > > --temp-install=./tmp_check \ > > > --top-builddir=../../.. \ > > > --dlpath=. \ > > > --schedule=./schedule_ddl_deparse_demo > > > > I haven't read the code, but this concept seems good to me. > > Excellent, thanks. > > > It has the unfortunate weakness that a difference could exist during > > the *middle* of the regression test run that is gone by the *end* of > > the run, but our existing pg_upgrade testing has the same weakness, so > > I guess we can view this as one more reason not to be too aggressive > > about having regression tests drop the unshared objects they create. > > Agreed. Not dropping objects also helps test pg_dump itself; the normal > procedure there is run the regression tests, then pg_dump the regression > database. Objects that are dropped never exercise their corresponding > pg_dump support code, which I think is a bad thing. I think we should > institute a policy that regression tests must keep the objects they > create; maybe not all of them, but at least a sample large enough to > cover all interesting possibilities.
This causes creation DDL is checked if it is used in the regression database, but what about ALTER and DROP? pg_dump doesn't issue those, except in special cases like inheritance. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
