Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: [4696] Add RE-SQL/MSQL test cases for Materialized View

[4696] Add RE-SQL/MSQL test cases for Materialized View

From
Fahar Abbas
Date:
Hi Hackers,

Please find attached the patch for RE-SQL for Materialized view.

Please review and apply the patch.

Will send MSQL patch later.

Kind Regards,
--
Fahar Abbas
QMG
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Phone Office: +92-51-835-8874
Phone Direct: +92-51-8466803
Mobile: +92-333-5409707
Skype ID: live:fahar.abbas
Website: www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment

Re: [4696] Add RE-SQL/MSQL test cases for Materialized View

From
Akshay Joshi
Date:
Hi Fahar

Below are the review comments:
  • Align test_msql.json file properly.
  • Give meaningful scenario names like "Alter MView comment, acl etc.."
  • Data for create and alter are identical, i am not sure what exactly you have changed.
  • Create/Alter test cases missing for With Data?, Tablespace, Fill factor, Table, Toast Table, Privileges. (Cover maximum controls.)

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:39 PM Fahar Abbas <fahar.abbas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi Hackers,

Please find attached the patch for RE-SQL for Materialized view.

Please review and apply the patch.

Will send MSQL patch later.

Kind Regards,
--
Fahar Abbas
QMG
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Phone Office: +92-51-835-8874
Phone Direct: +92-51-8466803
Mobile: +92-333-5409707
Skype ID: live:fahar.abbas
Website: www.enterprisedb.com


--
Thanks & Regards
Akshay Joshi
Sr. Software Architect
EnterpriseDB Software India Private Limited
Mobile: +91 976-788-8246

Re: [4696] Add RE-SQL/MSQL test cases for Materialized View

From
Dave Page
Date:
Hi

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:09 AM Fahar Abbas <fahar.abbas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi Hackers,

Please find attached the patch for RE-SQL for Materialized view.

Please review and apply the patch.

- Please be consistent with your naming - you have scenarios that mention both mview and MView. Any reason not to call them Materialised Views though?

- I would expect to see more alter steps; e.g. to change the name (thus ensuring that escaping is handled properly for that), to change autovac parameters, update the ACL etc. Whilst we probably cannot cover every possible scenario, we should at least try to get tests that cover all the basics.

- I honestly don't see how this is working (I need coffee maybe!). As far as I can see, the create and alter scenarios for both PG and EPAS use exactly the same parameters apart from the endpoints, yet the comment is being dropped and it's flipping to DATA from NO DATA. Are those actual bugs?

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company