On 15.01.24 09:54, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 23:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 05.09.23 19:26, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Thanks for the feedback! I updated the patch, 'needs-private-lo'
option enables kerberos, ldap, load_balance and ssl extra tests now.
As was
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 23:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 05.09.23 19:26, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback! I updated the patch, 'needs-private-lo'
> > option enables kerberos, ldap, load_balance and ssl extra tests now.
>
> As was discussed, I don't think "needs
On 05.09.23 19:26, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Thanks for the feedback! I updated the patch, 'needs-private-lo'
option enables kerberos, ldap, load_balance and ssl extra tests now.
As was discussed, I don't think "needs private lo" is the only condition
for these tests. At least kerberos and
On 04.09.23 22:30, Tom Lane wrote:
Noah Misch writes:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
certain tests in check-world by default is that the
> On 4 Sep 2023, at 23:09, Noah Misch wrote:
> I could imagine categories for filesystem bytes and RAM bytes. Also, while
> needs-private-lo has a bounded definition, "slow" doesn't. If today's one
> "slow" test increases check-world duration by 1.1x, we may not let a
> 100x-increase test use
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback! I updated the patch, 'needs-private-lo'
option enables kerberos, ldap, load_balance and ssl extra tests now.
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 04:30:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, I could live with something like that from the security standpoint.
> > Not sure if it
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 04:30:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
> >>> certain tests
Noah Misch writes:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
>>> certain tests in check-world by default is that the omitted tests are
>>> security
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 08:16:44PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nazir Bilal Yavuz writes:
> >> I created an 'all' option for PG_TEST_EXTRA to enable all test suites
> >> defined under PG_TEST_EXTRA.
> >
> > I think this is a seriously bad
> On 4 Sep 2023, at 17:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Nazir Bilal Yavuz writes:
>> I created an 'all' option for PG_TEST_EXTRA to enable all test suites
>> defined under PG_TEST_EXTRA.
>
> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
> certain tests in check-world by
Nazir Bilal Yavuz writes:
> I created an 'all' option for PG_TEST_EXTRA to enable all test suites
> defined under PG_TEST_EXTRA.
I think this is a seriously bad idea. The entire point of not including
certain tests in check-world by default is that the omitted tests are
security hazards, so a
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 16:58:42 +0300
Subject: [PATCH v1] Create shorthand for including all extra tests
This patch aims to make running full testsuite easier without having to
keep up with new tests and updates.
Create 'all' option for PG_TEST_EXTRA to enable all test suites defined
under
12 matches
Mail list logo
