Re: Remove source code display from \df+?
| От | Isaac Morland |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Remove source code display from \df+? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsGm5crtf+JOWh+n3v=9YAwonT2P_bgcdfn2SVxCK7pjxqG-g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Remove source code display from \df+? (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 16:56, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 03:04:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> That's excessive. The policy Alvaro mentions applies to globally-visible
> object names (i.e., database, role, and tablespace names), and it's there
> to try to ensure that doing "make installcheck" against a live
> installation won't clobber any non-test-created objects. There's no point
> in having such a policy within a test database --- its most likely effect
> there would be to increase the risk that different test scripts step on
> each others' toes. If you feel a need for a name prefix for non-global
> objects, use something based on the name of your test script.
But we *are* talking about the role to be created to allow stable output
of \df+ , so it's necessary to name it "regress_*". To appease
ENFORCE_REGRESSION_TEST_NAME_RESTRICTIONS, and to avoid clobbering
global objects during "installcheck".
Tom is talking about my informal policy of prefixing all objects. Only global objects need to be prefixed with regress_, but I prefixed everything I created (functions as well as the role). I actually called the role regress_psql_df and used that entire role name as the prefix of my function names, so I think it unlikely that I’ll collide with anything else.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: