| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Testing with concurrent sessions |
| Date: | 2010-01-07 17:19:50 |
| Message-ID: | 27327.1262884790@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Jan 7, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Right, but to my mind "building from a tarball" needs to include the
>> ability to run the regression tests on what you built. So injecting
>> Perl into that is moving the goalposts on build requirements.
> In that case, there's nothing for it except concurrent psql.
Unless we are prepared to define concurrency testing as something
separate from the basic regression tests. Which is kind of annoying but
perhaps less so than the alternatives. It certainly seems to me to
be the kind of thing you wouldn't need to test in order to have
confidence in a local build.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-01-07 17:22:45 | Re: Testing with concurrent sessions |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2010-01-07 17:15:14 | Re: Streaming replication and postmaster signaling |