Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:03:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > The pg_upgrade test suite originated in an age when "make check-world" was > > forbidden to depend on Perl; the choice was a shell script or a C program. >

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > The pg_upgrade test suite originated in an age when "make check-world" was > forbidden to depend on Perl; the choice was a shell script or a C program. We > do maintain vcregress.pl:upgradecheck(), a Windows-specific Perl

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:14:36AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> What about just reverting 2f227656076a? > > > That works for me too, if we think we no longer need that level of > > detail. > > A general issue with this sort

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On 3/10/17 19:15, Jeff Janes wrote: > Should --enable-tap-tests be mentioned in "32.1.3. Additional Test > Suites"? Or at least cross-referenced from "32.4. TAP Tests"? Done. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA,

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On 3/13/17 05:35, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > Another thing I noticed is that there's a bunch of 'diag' calls in the > tests scripts (particularly ssl/t/001_ssltests.pl and > recovery/t/001_stream_rep.pl) that should probably be 'note's instead, > so they don't pollute STDERR in non-verbose

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Jeff Janes wrote: > >> There was some recent discussion about making "make check-world" faster. > >> I'm all for that, but how about making it quieter? On both machines >

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

Tom Lane writes: > For the basic build process, we've largely solved that through the > use of "make -s". But we don't really have a comparable "be quiet" > option for test runs, especially not the TAP tests. Maybe we need > to think a bit more globally about what it is

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> What about just reverting 2f227656076a? > That works for me too, if we think we no longer need that level of > detail. A general issue with this sort of messaging is that when things are working more or less normally, you'd

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Jeff Janes wrote: > >> There was some recent discussion about making "make check-world" faster. > >> I'm all for that, but how about making it quieter? On both machines I've > >> run it on (CentOS6.8 and Ubuntu 16.04.2), it

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On 3/10/17 19:26, Jeff Janes wrote: > and there will be an exit code. > > > True. But I generally don't rely on that, unless the docs explicitly > tell me to. > > > If we show no output, then other people will complain that they can't > tell whether it's hanging. > > > Isn't

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Jeff Janes wrote: >> There was some recent discussion about making "make check-world" faster. >> I'm all for that, but how about making it quieter? On both machines I've >> run it on (CentOS6.8 and Ubuntu 16.04.2), it dumps some gibberish to >>

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

Jeff Janes wrote: > There was some recent discussion about making "make check-world" faster. > I'm all for that, but how about making it quieter? On both machines I've > run it on (CentOS6.8 and Ubuntu 16.04.2), it dumps some gibberish to > stderr, example attached. I think you're complaining

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 3/10/17 15:05, Jeff Janes wrote: > > There was some recent discussion about making "make check-world" > > faster. I'm all for that, but how about making it quieter? On both > > machines I've run it

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Jeff Janes wrote: > > > Also, it runs in about 8 minutes, not the 20 minutes reported by others. > > My system is virtualized, and not particularly fast. I wonder if it is > > failing early somewhere without

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On 3/10/17 15:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Jeff Janes wrote: > >> Also, it runs in about 8 minutes, not the 20 minutes reported by others. >> My system is virtualized, and not particularly fast. I wonder if it is >> failing early somewhere without running to completion? How would/should I >>

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

On 3/10/17 15:05, Jeff Janes wrote: > There was some recent discussion about making "make check-world" > faster. I'm all for that, but how about making it quieter? On both > machines I've run it on (CentOS6.8 and Ubuntu 16.04.2), it dumps some > gibberish to stderr, example attached. Which

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world output

Jeff Janes wrote: > Also, it runs in about 8 minutes, not the 20 minutes reported by others. > My system is virtualized, and not particularly fast. I wonder if it is > failing early somewhere without running to completion? How would/should I > know? Maybe you don't have --enable-tap-tests? --

[HACKERS] make check-world output

There was some recent discussion about making "make check-world" faster. I'm all for that, but how about making it quieter? On both machines I've run it on (CentOS6.8 and Ubuntu 16.04.2), it dumps some gibberish to stderr, example attached. Which first made me wonder whether the test passed or