* Christoph Berg (m...@debian.org) wrote: > Re: Stephen Frost 2016-07-14 <20160714142721.gl4...@tamriel.snowman.net> > > * Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@debian.org) wrote: > > > (This might be related to the fact that I use a "user" login on my build > > > machine) > > > > Yes, it is. > > > > We could possibly remove those tests, but I'm not really thrilled with > > that idea. I'm not sure if it'd be at all sensible to try and write > > something to check if the role "user" already exists. > > > > One thing we could do is provide an alternate expected file which has > > the results when this test is run with a login user of "user". That > > doesn't seem great either though. > > > > In any case, this should probably be sent over to the pgsql-hackers > > list. > > TBH, I'm not even sure if this is a bug. "user" is so overly generic > that it shouldn't be used as a user name in the first place.
It's certainly not a bug in PG, but just an artifact of certain parts of the regression suite making assumptions about the environment. It's not really ideal that we make such assumptions, but there isn't really a very easy wasy to fix that. Still, it might be something to ask the -hackers list. > If pg_regress supported output variations that would just apply to > some parts (like patches do), we could add that, but a full _1.out > copy of the file just for this corner case sounds like overkill. (And > as there's no direct way to add comments to the _1.out file, > remembering why it was created might be difficult as well.) That is certainly true, though one might at least look at the git history for the file and understand why it was added that way. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
