From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, bpalmer <bpalmer(at)crimelabs(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Regression tests for OBSD scrammed.. |
Date: | 2001-05-11 05:00:54 |
Message-ID: | 385.989557254@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> Possible solutions: (a) rename tables in one test or the other,
> or (b) use TEMPORARY tables in one test or the other. I kinda
> like (b), just to exercise temp tables in some interesting new
> ways. Whaddya think?
> I have a preference for (a). If we want to test temporary tables, let's
> have a test which does that. But having a possible name conflict mixed
> in to another test seems to be asking for trouble, or at least does not
> decouple things as much as they could be.
But we already have a ton of regress tests that work on nonconflicting
table names. Seems like we add coverage if we try a few that are doing
parallel uses of plain and temp tables of the same name.
> Bruce, would you have time to generate a regression test for temporary
> tables? If we don't have one now, we should.
There is one. But as a single test, it proves nothing about whether
temp tables conflict with similarly-named tables from the point of view
of another backend.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-11 05:04:00 | Re: 7.1.2 release |
Previous Message | Andrew Bosma | 2001-05-11 04:31:38 | Re: Re: PL/Python build |