| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 14:20:28 |
| Message-ID: | 644bd551-33c0-13bf-ba04-415a39367d6a@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/23/2017 09:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
OK, so should we just change "make installcheck" to "make check"?
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-23 14:22:28 | Re: Failure in commit_ts tap tests |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-23 14:16:49 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |