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.
> > We
> > do maintai
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 port of the
> suite. M
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 of messaging is that when th
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, Traini
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 m
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
> I've
> >> run it on (CentOS6.8 and Ubuntu 16.0
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 we're trying ton
> accom
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 just as soon not see it ...
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 dumps some gibberish to
> >>
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 that
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
>> stderr, example attached.
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 abo
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
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 running to completion? How wou
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
>> know?
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 first
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?
--
17 matches
Mail list logo
