| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA |
| Date: | 2023-02-13 21:46:32 |
| Message-ID: | c228600c-c60c-116d-e8f0-e88d112842de@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-02-13 Mo 14:34, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-02-13 14:15:24 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-13 13:45:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>>> Are there existing tests that we should add into that set that you're
>>>> thinking of..? I've been working with the Kerberos tests and that's
>>>> definitely one that seems to fit this description...
>>> I think the kerberos tests are already opt-in, so I don't think we need to
>>> gate it further.
>> I'd like to lump them in with a bunch of other tests though, to give it
>> more chance to run.. My issue currently is that they're *too* gated.
> Isn't the reason that we gate them that much that the test poses a security
> hazard on a multi-user system?
That's my understanding.
>
> I don't think we should combine opting into security hazards with opting into
> using disk space.
I agree
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2023-02-13 22:26:47 | Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-13 21:26:19 | OID ordering dependency in pg_dump |