Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-10-30 21:03:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Meh. Right now, it's easy to dismiss these tests as unimportant,
>> figuring that they play little part in whether the completed build
>> is reliable. But that may not always be true. If they do become
>> a significant part of our test arsenal, silently omitting them will
>> not be cool for configure to do.
> Well, I'm all for erroring out if somebody passed --enable-foo-tests and
> the prerequisites aren't there. What I *am* against is requiring an
> explicit flag to enable them because then they'll just not be run in
> enough environments. And that's what's much more likely to cause
> unnoticed bugs.
Once they're at the point where they're actually likely to catch stuff
of interest, I'll be all for enabling them by default. What I don't
want is for them to run or not run based on environmental happenstance.
It's way too easy for that to result in them not getting run even though
the user thought they were getting run; and if that results in a bug
not getting caught, it's just as bad as a missing run-time feature.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
