Re: [HACKERS] check with serial

2017-05-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 05/03/2017 10:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> On 05/02/2017 10:13 PM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: >>> And, now after your patch, do we still need "installcheck-parallel" >>> command? It is redundant IMO, just give a thought. >> I'd be quite

Re: [HACKERS] check with serial

2017-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 05/02/2017 10:13 PM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: >> And, now after your patch, do we still need "installcheck-parallel" >> command? It is redundant IMO, just give a thought. > I'd be quite happy to remove the target in favor of this

Re: [HACKERS] check with serial

2017-05-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 05/02/2017 10:13 PM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan > > wrote: > > > Here's a simple patch that does what I had in mind. It allows > providing > for an

Re: [HACKERS] check with serial

2017-05-02 Thread Vaishnavi Prabakaran
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan < andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Here's a simple patch that does what I had in mind. It allows providing > for an arbitrary schedule file in both the check and installcheck > recipes. The historic behaviour is preserved. > > Hmm,

Re: [HACKERS] check with serial

2017-05-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 05/01/2017 09:39 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > The other day I wanted to run "make check" but with the serial schedule. > This wasn't as easy as it should have been. Although we now have > installcheck-parallel we don't have check-serial. Should we have that? > Alternatively, should we allow a

[HACKERS] check with serial

2017-05-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
The other day I wanted to run "make check" but with the serial schedule. This wasn't as easy as it should have been. Although we now have installcheck-parallel we don't have check-serial. Should we have that? Alternatively, should we allow a SCHEDULE=foo argument for the "check" target which