Re: Regression tests vs existing users in an installation

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Regression tests vs existing users in an installation
Date: 2016-07-18 05:34:50
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTUYRSFCgRmcktgrzd+dcEcDw5DR3=uEHmS8_wDQjRuTQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> We could also do this by loading a C module during the regression
> tests, which seems maybe less ugly than adding a GUC.
> I don't particularly like your suggestion of spooky action at a
> distance between force_parallel_mode and regression_test_mode. That
> just seems kooky.

One downside of the plugin is that any users willing to do make
installcheck would need to install it as well.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-07-18 06:48:51 Re: RecoveryTargetTLI dead variable in XLogCtlData
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2016-07-18 04:32:52 Re: Reviewing freeze map code