| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Date: | 2022-01-19 20:43:10 |
| Message-ID: | 656024.1642624990@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I'm doubtful that it's good that we use BAIL_OUT so liberally, because it
> prevents further tests from running (i.e. if 001 bails, 002+ doesn't run),
> which doesn't generally seem like the right thing to do after a single test
> fails. But that's really independent of the fix you make here.
Agreed, that's a separate question. It does seem like "stop this script
and move to the next one" would be better behavior, though.
> I'd maybe do s/later/in the END block/ or such, so that one knows where to
> look. Took me a minute to find it again.
OK.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2022-01-19 21:11:48 | Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-19 20:40:12 | Re: Replace uses of deprecated Python module distutils.sysconfig |