| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression |
| Date: | 2025-03-31 21:17:15 |
| Message-ID: | 730EAD98-E876-4706-A9B0-4606ACB1B85B@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 28 Mar 2025, at 19:12, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2025-Mar-28, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I think instead of going this direction, we really need to create a
>> separately-purposed script that simply creates "one of everything"
>> without doing anything else (except maybe loading a little data).
>> I believe it'd be a lot easier to remember to add to that when
>> inventing new SQL than to remember to leave something behind from the
>> core regression tests. This would also be far faster to run than any
>> approach that involves picking a random subset of the core test
>> scripts.
>
> FWIW this sounds closely related to what I tried to do with
> src/test/modules/test_ddl_deparse; it's currently incomplete, but maybe
> we can use that as a starting point.
Given where we are in the cycle, it seems to make sense to stick to using the
schedule we already have rather than invent a new process for generating it,
and work on that for 19?
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Jackson | 2025-03-31 21:26:27 | Re: [PATCH] PGSERVICEFILE as part of a normal connection string |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-03-31 21:05:12 | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |