Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Oid is probably not good enough - with parallel tests and such it's not
>> necessarily predicable. Even less so when the tests are run against an
>> existing cluster. Sorting by name would probably be better...
> It's arguably more user-friendly, too, although part of me feels like
> it would be better to try to preserve the topological ordering in some
> way.
Yeah, loss of the causality relationship is the main thing that's bugging
me too.
If we sorted by OID then in most cases the objects would be listed in
creation order, which would likely also have something to do with the
dependency order; but it would be different in the same cases that are
most likely to be confusing :-(
I do not buy Andres' concern about parallelism breaking the test results.
We only ever drop objects created in the same test, so their OID ordering
would be the same (ie creation order) in every case unless an OID
wraparound occurred mid-test, which isn't a situation I feel a need to
worry about for this purpose. However, possible loss of user friendliness
*is* a valid concern here.
Anyway, we don't need a design for this today.
regards, tom lane