Re: [patch] extensions_path GUC

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, strk(at)keybit(dot)net
Subject: Re: [patch] extensions_path GUC
Date: 2015-10-24 20:13:23
Message-ID: 7D65E4AE-7452-4140-A69A-2D42842BA34D@justatheory.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Oct 23, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> wrote:

> I would love it if make check worked. make installcheck adds extra effort to extension develoopment, not to mention leaving your actual install in a less than pristine state.

I’ve wanted this for a long time. I think it would have to create a temporary cluster, fire up a server, install the extension(s), run the tests, shut down the server and delete the cluster.

> Possibly related to this... I'd also like to have other options for running unit tests, besides pg_regress. I looked at it briefly and the big PITA about doing it was having to manage the temporary database (and ideally temporary cluster). If standing those up was separated from pg_regress it would make it a lot easier for someone to customize how testing works under PGXS.

Right, then pg_regress could just be the default test framework.

Dvaid

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2015-10-25 02:07:00 Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work
Previous Message Noah Misch 2015-10-24 16:31:32 Re: Parallel Seq Scan