On 15.01.24 09:54, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 23:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 05.09.23 19:26, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Thanks for the feedback! I updated the patch, 'needs-private-lo'
option enables kerberos, ldap, load_balance and ssl extra tests now.
As was dis
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 23:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 05.09.23 19:26, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback! I updated the patch, 'needs-private-lo'
> > option enables kerberos, ldap, load_balance and ssl extra tests now.
>
> As was discussed, I don't think "needs privat
On 05.09.23 19:26, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Thanks for the feedback! I updated the patch, 'needs-private-lo'
option enables kerberos, ldap, load_balance and ssl extra tests now.
As was discussed, I don't think "needs private lo" is the only condition
for these tests. At least kerberos and lda
On 04.09.23 22:30, Tom Lane wrote:
Noah Misch writes:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
certain tests in check-world by default is that the omitt
> On 4 Sep 2023, at 23:09, Noah Misch wrote:
> I could imagine categories for filesystem bytes and RAM bytes. Also, while
> needs-private-lo has a bounded definition, "slow" doesn't. If today's one
> "slow" test increases check-world duration by 1.1x, we may not let a
> 100x-increase test use t
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback! I updated the patch, 'needs-private-lo'
option enables kerberos, ldap, load_balance and ssl extra tests now.
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 04:30:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, I could live with something like that from the security standpoint.
> > Not sure if it he
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 04:30:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
> >>> certain tests in
Noah Misch writes:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
>>> certain tests in check-world by default is that the omitted tests are
>>> security h
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nazir Bilal Yavuz writes:
> >> I created an 'all' option for PG_TEST_EXTRA to enable all test suites
> >> defined under PG_TEST_EXTRA.
> >
> > I think this is a seriously bad idea.
> On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Nazir Bilal Yavuz writes:
>> I created an 'all' option for PG_TEST_EXTRA to enable all test suites
>> defined under PG_TEST_EXTRA.
>
> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
> certain tests in check-world by defaul
Nazir Bilal Yavuz writes:
> I created an 'all' option for PG_TEST_EXTRA to enable all test suites
> defined under PG_TEST_EXTRA.
I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
certain tests in check-world by default is that the omitted tests are
security hazards, so a de
11 matches
Mail list logo
