A couple of thoughts I've been having that relate to this:
The traditional meaning of "installcheck" in GNU packages is to test
against the installed code, whereas "check" tests before installation.
Our concept of testing against a running server obviously does not apply
to many kinds of software,
On 04/25/2017 11:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I'm in the process of moving all the buildfarm tests to use check
>> instead of installcheck, but in such a way that it doesn't constantly
>> generate redundant installs.
> But is that something only of interest to the buildfarm, or should we
> do some
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 04/25/2017 10:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I agree entirely that it's confusing as heck. +1 for inventing a new name.
>> Yeah. I would have expected installcheck to just skip any tests that
>> don't make sense against an already-installed cluster. I would not
>> exp
On 04/25/2017 10:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
>> On 04/23/2017 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
AFAICT, unlike the pg_regress checks, which in the installcheck case run
against a running instance of postgres,
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> On 04/23/2017 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> AFAICT, unlike the pg_regress checks, which in the installcheck case run
>>> against a running instance of postgres, for TAP tests the only
>>> difference is that that f
On 04/23/2017 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> AFAICT, unlike the pg_regress checks, which in the installcheck case run
>> against a running instance of postgres, for TAP tests the only
>> difference is that that for the check case a temp install is done,
>> possibly with so
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> AFAICT, unlike the pg_regress checks, which in the installcheck case run
> against a running instance of postgres, for TAP tests the only
> difference is that that for the check case a temp install is done,
> possibly with some extra contrib modules. Is that correct? If is
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
>
> AFAICT, unlike the pg_regress checks, which in the installcheck case run
> against a running instance of postgres, for TAP tests the only
> difference is that that for the check case a temp install is done,
> possibly with some extra contr
AFAICT, unlike the pg_regress checks, which in the installcheck case run
against a running instance of postgres, for TAP tests the only
difference is that that for the check case a temp install is done,
possibly with some extra contrib modules. Is that correct? If is is, why
aren't we providing an
