Re: [HACKERS] make check false success

2017-06-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote: > Why not ? The caller is attempting to make an unsupported target, > how's that different from calling `make unexistent` ? That's a good point, but what Tom wrote is along the lines of my concerns also, especially his last

Re: [HACKERS] make check false success

2017-06-05 Thread Tom Lane
Sandro Santilli writes: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:20:25AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote: >>> I noticed that the `check` Makefile rule imported by PGXS is giving >>> a success exit code even when it is unsupported.

Re: [HACKERS] make check false success

2017-06-05 Thread Sandro Santilli
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:20:25AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote: > > I noticed that the `check` Makefile rule imported by PGXS is giving > > a success exit code even when it is unsupported. > > > > The attached patch fixes that. >

Re: [HACKERS] make check false success

2017-06-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote: > I noticed that the `check` Makefile rule imported by PGXS is giving > a success exit code even when it is unsupported. > > The attached patch fixes that. Hmm. I'm not 100% sure that the existing behavior is wrong. --

[HACKERS] make check false success

2017-06-01 Thread Sandro Santilli
I noticed that the `check` Makefile rule imported by PGXS is giving a success exit code even when it is unsupported. The attached patch fixes that. --strk; () Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer /\ https://strk.kbt.io/services.html >From 43fa28f141871a6efdd3e5d0c9ec8cc537585ff5 Mon