On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> TBH, I can't muster much sympathy for that position. Make a test case >>> for it, and the problem goes away, not to mention that confidence in >>> whether it actually works (not just compiles) goes up a lot. > >> I'm not sure there's an easy way to test it via pg_regress, but if >> somebody can come up with something, sure. But why stick to a rule >> that is inconvenient for no real benefit? Compiling everything in >> src/test/modules when someone runs 'make check-world' would take a >> handful of seconds and prevent developer errors like the one that >> started this thread. That seems like a slam-dunk from here, >> regardless of anything else. > > I guess what I'm having a problem with is something that lives under > src/test/ and is not in fact intended as a test. If you're not interested > in making it into a live test, it's in the wrong place. You might as > well complain that you put C code under doc/src/sgml/ and it didn't get > compiled.
Well, we could move worker_spi back to contrib. > One idea is to put "check: all" into its makefile, if there's no prospect > of check doing something more than that. That'd certainly be better than doing nothing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers