On 14 November 2016 at 16:52, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 11 November 2016 at 18:13, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be >>>> doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :) >>> >>> Yes please! >> >> No immediate takers, so adding to CF. >> >> I've taken the liberty of adding you as a reviewer based on your >> response and the simplicity of the patch. if you get the chance to >> test and verify please set ready for committer. > > I don't mind. This patch uses the following pattern: > $(or $(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl) > While something more spread in Postgres source would be something like that: > $(if $(PROVE_TESTS),$(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl) > It seems to me that we'd prefer that for consistency, but I see no > reason to not keep your patch as well. I am marking that as ready for > committer.
Thanks. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
