On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> (I think we could drop the savepoint
> >> too, no?)
>
> > One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to
> > explicitly drop the objects which we have created temporarily for this
> > test.
>
> They'll go away anyway at the end of the transaction that the whole
> script is wrapped in.
That's right, will remove savepoint.
> (But it might be worth choosing slightly less
> generic object names, to avoid a conflict against other sub-tests
> later in that script.)
>
The function name and statement name seems okay to me. How about
changing the table name to fooarr or arrtest?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
