On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Alexander Lakhin <exclus...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not seeing a workaround to perform more complete installcheck without > modifying makefiles. So for me the question is whether the increasing the > testing surface justifies this use of time.
After thinking about this some more, I think the question here is definitional. A first attempt at defining 'make installcheck' is to say that it runs the tests from the build tree against the running server. Certainly, we intend to use the SQL files that are present in the build tree, not the ones that were present in the build tree where the running server was built. But what about client programs that we use to connect to the server? You're suggesting that we use the pre-installed ones, but that is actually pretty problematic because the ones we see as installed might correspond neither to the contents of the build tree nor to the running server. Conceivably we could end up having a mix of assets from three different places: (1) the running server, (2) the build tree, (3) whatever is in our path at the moment. That seems very confusing. So now I think it's probably right to define 'make installcheck' as using the assets from the build tree to test the running server. Under that definition, we're missing some dependencies, but USE_INSTALLED_ASSETS isn't a thing we need. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
