Re: dropdb --force - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Juan José Santamaría Flecha
Subject Re: dropdb --force
Date
Msg-id CAC+AXB0i88wj3OjsU7kXP3R8W45mt-CN53KZWEkdt3ht8naDFg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dropdb --force  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: dropdb --force  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Re: dropdb --force  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 7:30 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:53:56AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have pushed the refactoring patch.  In the second patch, I have a
> few more comments.  I am not completely sure if it is a good idea to
> write a new test file 060_dropdb_force.pl when we already have an
> existing file 050_dropdb.pl for dropdb tests, but I think if we want
> to do that, then lets move existing test for dropdb '-f' from
> 050_dropdb.pl to new file and it might be better to name new file as
> 051_dropdb_force.pl.  I see that in some other cases like vacuumdb and
> clusterdb, we have separate test files to cover a different kinds of
> scenarios, so it should be okay to have a new file for dropdb tests.

Amit, as most of the patch set has been committed, would it make sense
to mark this entry as committed in the CF app?


Test 051_dropdb_force.pl is failing on Windows critters in the build farm, e.g:


Regards,

Juan José Santamaría Flecha 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: fe-utils - share query cancellation code
Next
From: Artur Zakirov
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL