> > > Possible solutions: (a) rename tables in one test or the other,
> > > or (b) use TEMPORARY tables in one test or the other. I kinda
> > > like (b), just to exercise temp tables in some interesting new
> > > ways. Whaddya think?
>
> I have a preference for (a). If we want to test temporary tables, let's
> have a test which does that. But having a possible name conflict mixed
> in to another test seems to be asking for trouble, or at least does not
> decouple things as much as they could be.
>
> There is a benefit to having complex tests (a great benefit) but without
> also having decoupled tests the diagnostic benefit is not as clear cut
> imho.
>
> Bruce, would you have time to generate a regression test for temporary
> tables? If we don't have one now, we should.
We already have one as temp.out. Is there something more it should be
testing?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
