Re: Small omission in type_sanity.sql

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Tom, is there a reason we run the various sanity tests early-ish in the
> schedule? It does seem to reduce their effectiveness a bit...

Originally, those tests were mainly needed to sanity-check the
hand-maintained initial catalog data, so it made sense to run them
early. Since we taught genbki.pl to do a bunch more work, that's
perhaps a bit less pressing.

There's at least one test that intentionally sets up a bogus btree
opclass, which we'd have to drop again if we wanted to run the
sanity checks later. Not sure what other issues might surface.
You could find out easily enough, of course ...

> Problems:
> - "Cross-check against pg_type entry" is far too strict about legal combinations
> of typstorage

Perhaps, but it's enforcing policy about what we want in the
initial catalog data, not what is possible to support. So
there's a bit of divergence of goals here too. Maybe we need
to split up the tests into initial-data-only tests (run early)
and tests that should hold for user-created objects too
(run late)?

regards, tom lane