Re: Create shorthand for including all extra tests

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 hazards, so a developer or buildfarm owner should review each
>>> one before deciding whether to activate it on their machine.

> Other than PG_TEST_EXTRA=wal_consistency_checking, they have the same hazard:
> they treat the loopback interface as private, so anyone with access to
> loopback interface ports can hijack the test.  I'd be fine with e.g.
> PG_TEST_EXTRA=private-lo activating all of those.  We don't gain by inviting
> the tester to review the tests to rediscover this common factor.

Yeah, I could live with something like that from the security standpoint.
Not sure if it helps Nazir's use-case though.  Maybe we could invent
categories that can be used in place of individual test names?
For now,

    PG_TEST_EXTRA="needs-private-lo slow"

would cover the territory of "all", and I think it'd be very seldom
that we'd have to invent new categories here (though maybe I lack
imagination today).

            regards, tom lane