Re: Concurrency testing

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Concurrency testing
Date: 2009-10-08 00:33:17
Message-ID: 8A186011-B48B-4589-8EDC-0FD34B9123B0@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Oct 7, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:

> I'd much rather live without Test::More and use DBD::Pg, then have
> Test::More but need to open pipes to psql to talk to the database,
> rather than using DBI to do it. But I guess we would need to worry
> about whether we can make DBD::Pg work with the installation being
> tested, rather than finding some other install.

The test architecture depends on Perl, but not on the DBI. I don't
think that Andrew wants to add any dependencies. Therefore we'd need
to use file handles. That's not to say that we couldn't write a nice
little interface for it such that the implementation could later change.

> Do we need to restrict ourselves to core? Developers already need
> flex and bison, which aren't needed when installing from the tarball.
> Couldn't we also have "make dev-check" that has higher requirements
> than "make check" does, but does a more thorough job?

flex and bison are not Perl modules.

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Renner 2009-10-08 00:39:43 Re: Performance testing framework..
Previous Message Greg Smith 2009-10-08 00:26:58 Re: Performance testing framework..