On 13 September 2016 at 22:02, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
Whoops, I managed to misplace this thread. >> 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. $(prove_check) has been there > since 9.4, and in the past we've often regretted it when we failed > to back-patch TAP infrastructure fixes all the way back to 9.4. No objection to backpatching, I just thought I'd be more intrusive to do that than just 9.6. Since 9.5 and older have more limited versions of PostgresNode which lack safe_psql, etc, I'm not sure it's very practical for extensions to bother running TAP tests on 9.4 and 9.5 anyway. I'd love to be able to, but unless we backport the new src/test/perl stuff and the changes to the rest of the TAP tests to make them work with it I don't see it being very useful. Since that's really not going to fly, I say this should just go in 9.6. Extension authors can just use: ifeq ($(MAJORVERSION),9.6) endif when defining their prove rules. Not beautiful, but when it wasn't really designed from the start to work with PGXS I don't see much alternative. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers