Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> writes:
>> I don't think we can protect against all possible user names. Wouldn't it be better to run the tests under an OS
userwith a different name, like "marmaduke"? ("user" is a truly terrible default user name).
> 100% agree. The point is not to protect against all possible user
> names but merely to reduce the likelihood of the problem.
It only reduces the likelihood if you assume that "system_user"
is less likely than "user" as a choice of OS user name to run
the tests under. That seems like a debatable assumption;
perhaps it's actually *more* likely.
Whether we need to have a test for this at all is perhaps a
more interesting argument.
regards, tom lane