| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure in commit_ts tap tests |
| Date: | 2017-01-23 14:03:14 |
| Message-ID: | 17741.1485180194@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 01/20/2017 01:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It looks like at least part of the answer is that the buildfarm isn't
>> running this test. AFAICS, it runs "make installcheck" not
>> "make check" in src/test/modules. I don't know whether any of the
>> critters would have duplicated the failure, but they weren't trying.
> Is there a reason why these tests aren't run under installcheck? If
> there is a justification I can look at it, or we should decide on one
> canonical mode of running the tests and stick to that.
Well, for at least some of them, "make check" is necessary because they
need to change postmaster parameters or load special shared libraries.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-23 14:16:49 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-23 13:59:35 | Re: Failure on sittella |