On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 03:43:41PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 04:20:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> We could use a failure path for each psql command rather than a SKIP
>> block, as you told me, if the psql fails and check that we get some
>> error strings related to the loading of auth files. However, I am
>> scared of this design in the long-term as it could cause the tests to
>> pass with a failure triggered on platforms and/or configurations where
>> we should have a success. So, I am tempted to drop the ball for now
>> with the TAP part.
>
> Ok. We could still keep the tests for the valid lines part though?
With the SQLs modified as below, this part is less interesting.
>> The patch still has value for the end-user. I have checked the
>> backend part, and I did not notice any obvious issue. There is one
>> thing that I am wondering though: should we change the two queries in
>> sysviews.sql so as we check that there are zero errors in the two
>> views when the files are parsed? This simple change would avoid
>> mistakes for users running installcheck on a production installation.
>
> Do you mean something like
>
> SELECT count(*) > 0 AS ok,
> count(*) FILTER (WHERE error IS NOT NULL) = 0 AS has_no_error
> FROM pg_hba_file_rules ;
>
> and similar for pg_ident_rule_mappings?
Something like that, yes.
--
Michael
