On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 3:56 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> writes: > > Committed that, thanks. > > Buildfarm member snakefly doesn't like this too much. Since no other > animals have failed, I guess it must be about local conditions on > that machine, but the report is pretty opaque: > > # +++ tap check in src/test/modules/test_extensions +++ > > # Failed test '$system extension is installed correctly on > pg_available_extensions' > # at t/001_extension_control_path.pl line 69. > # got: 'f' > # expected: 't' > > # Failed test '$system extension is installed correctly on > pg_available_extensions with empty extension_control_path' > # at t/001_extension_control_path.pl line 76. > # got: 'f' > # expected: 't' > # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 5. > [06:43:53] t/001_extension_control_path.pl .. > Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) > Failed 2/5 subtests > > Looking at the test, it presupposes that "amcheck" must be an > available extension. I do not see anything that guarantees > that that's so, though. It'd fail if contrib hasn't been > installed. Is there a reason to use "amcheck" rather than > something more certainly available, like "plpgsql"?
There is no specific reason to use "amcheck" instead of "plpgsql". Attached a patch with this change, sorry about that. (Not sure if we should also improve the message to make the test failure less opaque?) -- Matheus Alcantara
v1-0001-Fix-extension-control-path-tests.patch
Description: Binary data
