On 27/01/11 00:15, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> On ons, 2011-01-26 at 17:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I was a bit disturbed by the fact that fixing only one of the four >>> variant files was enough to turn the whole buildfarm green. Are the >>> other three cases even needed anymore? If so, how can we get some >>> coverage on them? > >> This is explained in plpython/expected/README. As you can see there, it >> would need some careful attention from buildfarm code and participants >> to cover all that. > > Hmmm ... well, the fact that we have zero coverage on the first two > variants definitely seems surprising and scary to me. Why aren't those > getting hit by the non-C-locale buildfarm runs?
Looking at the README, you get the basic output file if you have server encoding != SQL_ASCII and client encoding UTF8, which is what I was testing with. _0 is when you have server encoding != SQL_ASCII and client encoding != UTF8, which I'm not sure how popular of a setup is in the buildfarm (or maybe by sheer luck it didn't break, dunno). _2 is only Python 2.2, but I tried: with Python 2.2 there's a whole lot of regression tests that fail. The last release of 2.2 is April 2003, maybe it's time to forget about that particular dinosaur? When coding I was running tests with Pythons 2.3 to 3.1 and trying to keep the stuff working with these versions, as the last 2.3 release was in March 2008. _3 is the variant file you get if your server is SQL_ASCII and you have a non-ancient Python, which I guess is the config quote a few buildfarm animals has. So three things: * I should test with SQL_ASCII * we might want to check if the the _0 variant file needs updates * maybe it's time to stop supporting Python 2.2 Cheers, Jan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
