Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> 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.
But we already have a ton of regress tests that work on nonconflicting
table names. Seems like we add coverage if we try a few that are doing
parallel uses of plain and temp tables of the same name.
> Bruce, would you have time to generate a regression test for temporary
> tables? If we don't have one now, we should.
There is one. But as a single test, it proves nothing about whether
temp tables conflict with similarly-named tables from the point of view
of another backend.
regards, tom lane
