From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add a regression test for allow_system_table_mods
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:18:14 +0900
Message-ID: <20191202031814.GD1696@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15399.1575043746@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <E1iacW7-0003h6-6U@gemulon.postgresql.org>
<13656.1575041267@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<315cfd3b-9d04-0ea4-76d8-1507c8bd9bb7@2ndquadrant.com>
<15399.1575043746@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:09:06AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree that this is somewhat pointless in the case of an "unsafe" test.
> But using a different name isn't going to invalidate the test case,
> so there's not really a reason to not follow the convention. And
> trying to have an exception for unsafe_tests seems like a lot more
> trouble than it'd be worth.
Yeah, I agree that it would be just more simple to make the unsafe
test adopt the convention and be done with it. Could you fix it
please? longfin and mantid (as well as anybody running the unsafe
tests by themselves) are complaining for three days now.
--
Michael
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (832B, ../20191202031814.GD1696@paquier.xyz/2-signature.asc)
download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add a regression test for allow_system_table_mods
In-Reply-To: <20191202031814.GD1696@paquier.xyz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox