Re: Specifying the unit in storage parameter

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Specifying the unit in storage parameter
Date: 2014-08-28 13:53:40
Message-ID: 20140828135340.GN7046@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier wrote:

> This remark is just to limit the amount of trash in the database used
> for regression tests. But then if we'd remove everything we would lack
> handy material for tests on utilities like database-wide thingies of
> the type VACUUM, REINDEX, pg_dump, etc. And we can just drop the
> database used for regressions to clean up everything. So that's not
> mandatory at all. I tend to always clean up objects in my patches
> touching regressions to limit interactions with other tests, but I
> guess that's up to the person who wrote the code to decide.

Leaving lingering objects is not a bad thing, particularly if they have
unusual properties; they enable somebody pg_dump'ing the database which
can be a good test for pg_dump.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-08-28 14:05:28 Re: re-reading SSL certificates during server reload
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2014-08-28 13:51:54 Re: pgsql: Allow units to be specified in relation option setting value.