From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Concurrency testing |
Date: | 2009-10-08 00:18:43 |
Message-ID: | f67928030910071718s44c55862l7bd49b98f5bd4339@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:28:08AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:53 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>>> At the moment, we have no way to test this, although with certain
>>> Perl modules, it would be pretty trivial.
>>
>> No non-core modules necessary. Jus use Test::More and file handles
>> opened via pipes to two or more psql sessions.
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.
>
> When did Test::More become core? I believe we support back to Perl
> 5.6 :/
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?
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-10-08 00:26:58 | Re: Performance testing framework.. |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-10-08 00:16:06 | Re: Feature Suggestion: PL/Js |