Re: pgsql: Reduce risk of accidentally running temp-install regression tests

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <petere(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Reduce risk of accidentally running temp-install regression tests
Date: 2008-11-30 18:29:02
Message-ID: 17142.1228069742@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Suppressing the output defies the purpose for this one test, namely to check
> different ways to connect. If pg_regress is able do the job of two sed calls in
> can easily substitute the port number itself. I'm not sure if this is worth the
> hassle, or whether we just remove these parts of the regression test.

Well, pg_regress already does some comparable things for the core
regression tests, see convert_sourcefiles_in(). Whether it's worth
the hassle to have a test for this case isn't clear to me. It doesn't
seem like something particularly likely to break.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-11-30 18:49:36 pgsql: Remove inappropriate memory context switch in
Previous Message User Dim 2008-11-30 16:40:40 prefix - prefix: WIP: explicit initialiser function prefix_range()