Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date
Msg-id 20190208004313.GI19742@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 12:07:01PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Feb-07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Another thing I was thinking of: We need some database-global tests.
>> For example, at some point during development, I had broken some variant
>> of REINDEX DATABASE.  Where could we put those tests?  Maybe with reindexdb?
>
> What's wrong with a new reindex.sql in regress?

Depending on the numbers of objects created and remaining around
before the script is run in the main suite, this would be costly.  I
think that this approach would not scale well in the long-term.
Having TAP test with reindexdb gives you access to a full instance
with its contents always fully known at test time.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Connection slots reserved for replication
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Tighten up a few overly lax regexes in pg_dump's tap tests