On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 01:45:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Is this extra dependency actually essential? I'm not really > happy about increasing the number of moving parts in this test.
Hmmm. I don't actually object to removing the part depending on pageinspect in the tests. Relying on the on-disk page format has proved to be more reliable for the buildfarm than I initially thought, and we are actually able to keep the same coverage without the dependency on pageinspect. Now, I don't think that this is not a problem only for src/test/recovery/ but to any path using EXTRA_INSTALL. For example, if you take contrib/ltree_plpython/, then issue "make install" from this path followed by an installcheck, then the tests complain about ltree missing from the installation. For the recovery tests, we already require test_decoding so I would expect the problem to get worse with the time as we should not restrict the dependencies with other modules if they make sense for some TAP tests. I am wondering if it would be better to just install automatically all the paths listed in EXTRA_INSTALL when invoking installcheck. We enforce the target in src/test/recovery/Makefile, still we could use this opportunity to mark it with TAP_TESTS=1. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
