To ensure that "make installcheck" can be used safely against an existing
installation, we need to be careful about what global object names
(database, role, and tablespace names) we use; otherwise we might
accidentally clobber important objects. There's been a weak consensus that
test databases should have names including "regression", and that test role
names should start with "regress_", but we didn't have any particular rule
about tablespace names; and neither of the other rules was followed with
any consistency either.
This commit moves us a long way towards having a hard-and-fast rule that
regression test databases must have names including "regression", and that
test role and tablespace names must start with "regress_". It's not
completely there because I did not touch some test cases in rolenames.sql
that test creation of special role names like "session_user". That will
require some rethinking of exactly what we want to test, whereas the intent
of this patch is just to hit all the cases in which the needed renamings
are cosmetic.
There is no enforcement mechanism in this patch either, but if we don't
add one we can expect that the tests will soon be violating the convention
again. Again, that's not such a cosmetic change and it will require
discussion. (But I did use a quick-hack enforcement patch to find these
cases.)
Discussion: <16638.1468620817@sss.pgh.pa.us>
The original location in create_function_3.sql didn't invite the close
structinity warranted for adding new leakproof functions. Add comments
to the test explaining that functions should only be added after
careful consideration and understanding what a leakproof function is.
Per complaint from Tom Lane after 5eebb8d954.
Use the unaligned/no rowcount output mode in a regression tests that
shows all built-in leakproof functions. Currently a new leakproof
function will often change the alignment of all existing functions,
making it hard to see the actual difference and creating unnecessary
patch conflicts.
Noticed while looking over a patch introducing new leakproof functions.
Reviewed-by: Ali Dar <ali.munir.dar@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Amit Khandekar <amit.khandekar@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Rodolfo Campero <rodolfo.campero@anachronics.com>
We don't normally allow quals to be pushed down into a view created
with the security_barrier option, but functions without side effects
are an exception: they're OK. This allows much better performance in
common cases, such as when using an equality operator (that might
even be indexable).
There is an outstanding issue here with the CREATE FUNCTION / ALTER
FUNCTION syntax: there's no way to use ALTER FUNCTION to unset the
leakproof flag. But I'm committing this as-is so that it doesn't
have to be rebased again; we can fix up the grammar in a future
commit.
KaiGai Kohei, with some wordsmithing by me.
