Re: test_pg_dump missing cleanup actions

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: test_pg_dump missing cleanup actions
Date: 2018-11-29 07:05:22
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 06:49:26PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz) wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 09:20:15AM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch with more comments about the intents of the test
>>> suite, and the separate issue pointed out by Tom fixed. It seems to me
>>> that actually checking the contents of pg_init_privs would improve the
>>> reason why the test exists.. I would welcome input about this last
>>> point.
>> So, Stephen, any input to offer? This has been around for the last
>> three weeks. I am tracking this thread in the section for older bugs in
>> v11 open items.
> It's on my list of things to look at and hope to do so soon.

So it has already been two months. Do you have any input to offer or
should I do the cleanup myself? If none, then I still propose my
cleanup patch from upthread, and I propose to apply it within the next
couple of days if there are no objections.

The annoying part about this stuff is that when running tests on Windows
we get failures after multiple runs on the same installed instance, and
the module is not marked with NO_INSTALLCHECK. I just got annoyed by
that test a portion of this week to test some other patch with MSVC as
well :(

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kato, Sho 2018-11-29 07:17:20 RE: Planning time of Generic plan for a table partitioned into a lot
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-11-29 07:00:20 Re: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column to pg_stat_replication