From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Switch TAP tests of pg_rewind to use role with only function permissions |
Date: | 2019-04-12 01:58:48 |
Message-ID: | 20190412015848.GC2144@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 09:40:36AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> If we haven't already (and knowing you it wouldn't surprise me if you had
> :P), we should probably look through the rest of the tests to see if we
> have other similar cases. In general I think any case where "can be run by
> non-superuser with specific permissions or a superuser" is the case, we
> should be testing it with the "non-superuser with permissions". Because,
> well, superusers will never have permission problems (and they will both
> test the functionality).
I am ready to bet that we have other problems lying around.
> I do think it's perfectly reasonable to have that hardcoded in the
> RewindTest.pm module. It doesn't have to be pluggable.
Thanks, I have committed the patch to do so (d4e2a84), after rewording
a bit the comments. And particularly thanks to Peter to mention that
having more tests with such properties would be nicer.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-04-12 02:01:39 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-12 01:48:06 | Re: Issue in ExecCleanupTupleRouting() |