2013-01-31 16:39 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Zolt=E1n_B=F6sz=F6rm=E9nyi?= <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
>> 2013-01-31 15:22 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
>>> That sounds a lot more difficult than just using "make installcheck" and
>>> configure the running server with zero prepared xacts ...
>> It didn't occur to me to use "make installcheck" for this one.
>> What is strange though is why prepared_xacts_1.out exists
>> at all, since pg_regress.c / make check seems to set
>> max_prepared_transactions on Windows, too.
> Alvaro told you why: so that the tests wouldn't report failure in
> "make installcheck" against a stock-configuration server.
> BTW, 99% of the time you can update alternative expected files by
> applying the same patch to them as you did to the tested version.
> At least that usually works for me, and it can be a lot easier than
> arranging to duplicate the environment the alternative file is
> meant for.
> regards, tom lane
Thanks. A question though: how does "make check" or "make installcheck"
chooses between the *.out and its different *_N.out incarnations?
I couldn't find traces of prepared_xacts_1.out in any file saying "this
is the one to be used in this-and-this" configuration. Does the procedure
check against all versions and the least different one is reported?
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2013-01-31 18:38:07|
|Subject: Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2013-01-31 16:50:26|
|Subject: Re: Should pg_dump dump larger tables first?|