Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqRqAwWy7OuMXa+_sJZuvNf7OZpqJgyyPqoLOPq=khoGww@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> I left out the proposed regression tests because they fail in "make >> installcheck" mode, unless you've previously built and installed cube >> and seg, which seems like an unacceptable requirement to me. I don't >> think that leaving the code untested is a good final answer, of course. >> The idea I was toying with was to create a dummy extension for testing >> purposes by means of doing a direct INSERT into pg_extension --- which >> is ugly and would only work for superusers, but the latter is true of >> "CREATE EXTENSION cube" too. Anybody have a better idea? > > I had a possibly better idea: instead of manufacturing an empty extension > with a direct INSERT, hack on the one extension that we know for sure > will be installed, namely postgres_fdw itself. So we could do, eg, > > create function foo() ... > alter extension postgres_fdw add function foo(); > and then test shippability of foo() with or without having listed > postgres_fdw as a shippable extension. Yeah, I don't have a better idea than that. Could we consider shipping that in a different library than postgres_fdw.so, like postgres_fdw_test.so? That's still strange to have a dummy object in postgres_fdw.so just for testing purposes. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: