Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date: 2019-02-08 00:43:13
Message-ID: 20190208004313.GI19742@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 12:07:01PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Feb-07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Another thing I was thinking of: We need some database-global tests.
>> For example, at some point during development, I had broken some variant
>> of REINDEX DATABASE. Where could we put those tests? Maybe with reindexdb?
>
> What's wrong with a new reindex.sql in regress?

Depending on the numbers of objects created and remaining around
before the script is run in the main suite, this would be costly. I
think that this approach would not scale well in the long-term.
Having TAP test with reindexdb gives you access to a full instance
with its contents always fully known at test time.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2019-02-08 01:00:49 Re: Tighten up a few overly lax regexes in pg_dump's tap tests
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-02-08 00:37:40 Re: Connection slots reserved for replication