Re: DROP DATABASE is interruptible

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Evgeny Morozov <postgresql3(at)realityexists(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: DROP DATABASE is interruptible
Date: 2023-09-25 18:52:23
Message-ID: 20230925185223.ttgkfl3gi6uqtww5@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2023-09-25 01:48:31 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I noticed that this patch set introduced this pg_dump test:
>
> On 12.07.23 03:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> > + 'CREATE DATABASE invalid...' => {
> > + create_order => 1,
> > + create_sql => q(CREATE DATABASE invalid; UPDATE pg_database SET datconnlimit = -2 WHERE datname = 'invalid'),
> > + regexp => qr/^CREATE DATABASE invalid/m,
> > + not_like => {
> > + pg_dumpall_dbprivs => 1,
> > + },
> > + },
>
> But the key "not_like" isn't used for anything by that test suite. Maybe
> "unlike" was meant?

It's not clear to me either. Invalid databases shouldn't *ever* be dumped, so
explicitly listing pg_dumpall_dbprivs is odd.

TBH, I find this testsuite the most opaque in postgres...

> But even then it would be useless because the "like" key is empty, so there
> is nothing that "unlike" can subtract from. Was there something expected
> from the mention of "pg_dumpall_dbprivs"?

Not that I can figure out...

> Perhaps it would be better to write out
>
> like => {},
>
> explicitly, with a comment, like some other tests are doing.

Yea, that looks like the right direction.

I'll go and backpatch the adjustment.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-09-25 19:42:26 Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-09-25 18:45:07 Re: Eager page freeze criteria clarification