Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > While updating an extension for 9.6 I noticed that while the > $(prove_check) definition is exposed for use by PGXS in > Makefile.global, extensions can't actually use the TAP tests because > we don't install the required Perl modules like PostgresNode.pm.
> I don't see any reason not to make this available to extension authors > and doing so is harmless, so here's a small patch to install it. I > think it's reasonable to add this to 9.6 even at this late stage; IMO > it should've been installed from the beginning. Without taking a position on the merits of this patch per se, I'd like to say that I find the argument for back-patching into 9.6 and not further than that to be pretty dubious. $(prove_check) has been there since 9.4, and in the past we've often regretted it when we failed to back-patch TAP infrastructure fixes all the way back to 9.4. Or to be concrete: how is an extension author, or more to the point an extension Makefile, supposed to know whether it can use $(prove_check)? How would this patch change that, and how would extension authors cope with building against both patched and unpatched trees? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers