Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-11-26 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > I found this directory, and it seems like a good place to add some more > tests (other thread), but I'm puzzled why it's hidden under modules/, > since it's not, well, a module. Why is it not in src/test/? Doing it like this allowed it to be picked up automatically b

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-11-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2019-06-29 19:21, Tom Lane wrote: Stephen Frost writes: * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: We could make the new subdirectory be something specific like "src/test/modules/test_rolenames", but I think very likely we'll be wanting some additional test scripts that we likewise deem unsafe

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-06-29 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> We could make the new subdirectory be something specific like >> "src/test/modules/test_rolenames", but I think very likely we'll be >> wanting some additional test scripts that we likewise deem unsafe to >> run during "installcheck

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-06-28 Thread Tom Lane
OK, here's a completed patch to add checking for naming-rule violations. I updated regress.sgml to clarify the naming rules (and failed to resist the temptation to update a lot of other somewhat-obsolete statements there, too). Also worth noting is that I added an IsReservedName check to pg_repli

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-06-28 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Furthermore, while you can do "make install" and "make installcheck" > in this directory or its children, it is HIGHLY NOT ADVISED to do so > with a server containing valuable data. Some of these tests may have > undesirable side

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-06-27 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-Jun-27, Tom Lane wrote: > Further on the rolenames test mess: I started to work on removing > that script's creation of out-of-spec user names, but my heart just > sank to the floor when I noticed that it was also doing stuff like > this: > > ALTER USER ALL SET application_name to 'SLAP';

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:33 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> Comments? > LGTM. Thanks for looking! > s/must/should/ ? Sure, if you like. Further on the rolenames test mess: I started to work on removing that script's creation of out-of-spec user names, but my heart just sank to

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:33 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Comments? LGTM. s/must/should/ ? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

2019-06-25 Thread Tom Lane
[ blast from the past department ] So, this thread about ensuring the regression tests don't create random globally-visible names seems to have got lost in the weeds. I'm going to resurrect it after noticing that two different places have grown violations of the rule since I fixed things in 18555