From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: make -C src/test/isolation failure in index-killtuples due to btree_gist |
Date: | 2025-08-18 23:15:06 |
Message-ID: | aKOz-jK5TqiUPbkY@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 11:38:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> No, it makes absolutely no sense to test e.g. hash killtuples support in
>> btree_gist.
>
> I think the complaint is that nothing has been done to ensure that
> these modules have been installed. You created a new dependency that
> developers have to work around, rather than teaching the build system
> to handle it. As a comparison point, all of the tests in
> src/test/recovery, src/test/authentication, etc take care to install
> required modules when you say "make check" in those directories.
> You broke that for src/test/isolation, and you should fix it.
> It shouldn't be much harder than setting EXTRA_INSTALL in the
> Makefile case; I dunno about meson.
All these test suites can rely on EXTRA_INSTALL because they rely on
the check/installcheck rules from Makefile.global, where checkprep is
pulled in. src/test/isolation defines its own check rules, so we
would need a trick similar to what was done before b1720fe63f34.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-08-18 23:17:29 | Re: Support getrandom() for pg_strong_random() source |
Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-08-18 22:53:44 | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |