Wow, I am impressed by 'gmake check'.  Who did all that work?  It is

I modified tools/pgtest to use 'gmake check'.  Thanks.


Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Amazing you find 688 bytes worth discussing.  I know you said "what
> > happens if everyone adds their scripts", but something that would be a
> > mess if everyone did it isn't always a proper way to judge if something
> > is appropriate.
> I said, if everyone adds their test methodologies.  That leads to
> discrepancies, more of them down the road if one method changes and the
> other doesn't catch up.  For instance, your method just calls pg_ctl,
> createdb, etc. from the path.  If people already have a stable
> installation of PostgreSQL on their machine, then this will test the wrong
> installation.  So, from now on, if someone submits a test result I have to
> ask, "which method did you use" -- "don't use that method, because it's
> wrong".  That is one instance, and I'm sure you'll fix it, but there might
> be more.  What I'm saying is, we were in a discussion about improving the
> testing of PostgreSQL, and this is not a step forward.  If we need to
> improve the testing mechanisms for various purposes -- patch application,
> automated testing, etc. -- let's look at it and see how we can improve the
> current infrastructure without inventing a parallel one.  At this point,
> I'm not sure why "make check" doesn't serve you.  Perhaps you are not
> fully aware of what it does (I guess so, from looking at your script).
> -- 
> Peter Eisentraut   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to