| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TAP backpatching policy |
| Date: | 2017-05-31 17:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 30214.1496250801@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> My main concern is how widely is the buildfarm going to test the new
> test frameworks. If we backpatch PostgresNode-based tests to 9.2, are
> buildfarm animals going to need to be reconfigured to use
> --enable-tap-tests?
Yes. The animals that are doing it at all are using code more or less
like this:
if ($branch eq 'HEAD' or $branch ge 'REL9_4')
{
push(@{$conf{config_opts}},"--enable-tap-tests");
}
(verbatim from longfin's config script)
So maybe that's an argument for not going back before 9.4. OTOH,
you may be giving the buildfarm owners too little credit for
willingness to update their configurations.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-05-31 17:18:54 | Re: <> join selectivity estimate question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-31 17:05:25 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x |