Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I had a possibly better idea: instead of manufacturing an empty extension
>> with a direct INSERT, hack on the one extension that we know for sure
>> will be installed, namely postgres_fdw itself. So we could do, eg,
>>
>> create function foo() ...
>> alter extension postgres_fdw add function foo();
>> and then test shippability of foo() with or without having listed
>> postgres_fdw as a shippable extension.
> Yeah, I don't have a better idea than that. Could we consider shipping
> that in a different library than postgres_fdw.so, like
> postgres_fdw_test.so?
I'm envisioning the extra function(s) as just being SQL functions, so
they don't need any particular infrastructure.
> That's still strange to have a dummy object in
> postgres_fdw.so just for testing purposes.
We could drop the extra functions at the end of the test, but I don't
see the point exactly. We'd just be leaving the regression test database
with some odd contents of the extension --- there's not any wider effect
than that.
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
