Re: Small omission in type_sanity.sql

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Small omission in type_sanity.sql
Дата
Msg-id 3604661.1674869944@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Small omission in type_sanity.sql  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: Small omission in type_sanity.sql  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Tom, is there a reason we run the various sanity tests early-ish in the
> schedule? It does seem to reduce their effectiveness a bit...

Originally, those tests were mainly needed to sanity-check the
hand-maintained initial catalog data, so it made sense to run them
early.  Since we taught genbki.pl to do a bunch more work, that's
perhaps a bit less pressing.

There's at least one test that intentionally sets up a bogus btree
opclass, which we'd have to drop again if we wanted to run the
sanity checks later.  Not sure what other issues might surface.
You could find out easily enough, of course ...

> Problems:
> - "Cross-check against pg_type entry" is far too strict about legal combinations
>   of typstorage

Perhaps, but it's enforcing policy about what we want in the
initial catalog data, not what is possible to support.  So
there's a bit of divergence of goals here too.  Maybe we need
to split up the tests into initial-data-only tests (run early)
and tests that should hold for user-created objects too
(run late)?

            regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Using WaitEventSet in the postmaster
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Using WaitEventSet in the postmaster