| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: possibility to specify template database for pg_regress |
| Date: | 2017-02-14 19:59:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20170214195940.lwutkfaz2vtehw7n@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-02-14 12:33:35 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/13/17 8:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-02-14 11:46:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > > I still fail to see why --use-existing as suggested in
> > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170208002900.vkldujzfkwbvqqq7@alap3.anarazel.de
> > > > isn't sufficient.
> > >
> > > Some tests create objects without removing them, meaning that
> > > continuous runs would fail with only --use-existing. This patch brings
> > > value in such cases.
> >
> > You can trivially script the CREATE/DROP DB outside with
> > --use-existing. Which seems a lot more flexible than adding more and
> > more options to pg_regress.
>
> AFAIK if you're doing make check (as opposed to installcheck) it's
> significantly more complicated than that since you'd have to create a temp
> cluster/install yourself.
But in that case you can't have useful templates in the regression test
either, so the whole discussion is moot?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-14 20:05:55 | Re: Official adoption of PGXN (was: removing tsearch2) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-14 19:54:14 | Re: pg_waldump's inclusion of backend headers is a mess |