Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > Committed after simplifying the Makefile.
> >
> > While I have no particular objection to adding these tests, the
> > commit log's claim that this will improve buildfarm
On 2016-11-14 12:14:10 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit
> > >> do-nothing
On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit
> >> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here.
>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. What about inventing an additional macro NO_INSTALLCHECK that
>> prevents pgxs.mk from generating an installcheck rule?
> That'd work. I'd also be ok with living with the warning. I have to say
> I
On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit
> >> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here.
>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit
>> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here.
> I had that at first, but that generates a warning
On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Committed after simplifying the Makefile.
>
> While I have no particular objection to adding these tests, the
> commit log's claim that this will improve buildfarm testing is
> quite wrong. The
Andres Freund writes:
> Committed after simplifying the Makefile.
While I have no particular objection to adding these tests, the
commit log's claim that this will improve buildfarm testing is
quite wrong. The buildfarm runs "make installcheck" not
"make check" in contrib.
Hi,
On 2016-11-08 10:25:11 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> ifdef USE_PGXS
> PG_CONFIG = pg_config
> PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --pgxs)
> @@ -21,3 +25,29 @@ top_builddir = ../..
> include $(top_builddir)/src/Makefile.global
> include $(top_srcdir)/contrib/contrib-global.mk
> endif
> +
> +#
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I had also thought about it while preparing patch, but I couldn't find
>> any clear use case. I think it could be useful during development of
>> a module, but not sure if it is worth to add a target. I
Hi,
> I had also thought about it while preparing patch, but I couldn't find
> any clear use case. I think it could be useful during development of
> a module, but not sure if it is worth to add a target. I think there
> is no harm in adding such a target, but lets take an opinion from
>
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have started with the review for this patch and would like to share
> some of my initial review comments that requires author's attention.
>
Thanks.
> 1) I am getting some trailing whitespace errors when
Hi,
I have started with the review for this patch and would like to share
some of my initial review comments that requires author's attention.
1) I am getting some trailing whitespace errors when trying to apply
this patch using git apply command. Following are the error messages i
am getting.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-08-30 07:57:19 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I will write such a test case either in this week or early next week.
>>
>> Great.
>>
>
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-08-30 07:57:19 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I will write such a test case either in this week or early next week.
>
> Great.
>
Okay, attached patch adds some simple tests for pg_stat_statements.
One thing to note
On 2016-08-30 07:57:19 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I will write such a test case either in this week or early next week.
Great.
> I hope this is not super urgent, let me know if you think otherwise.
It's not urgent, no.
Thanks!
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2016-02-04 21:43:14 +, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.
>>>
>>> The previous
Robert Haas wrote:
> That would also have the advantage of improving the test coverage for
> pg_stat_statements, which is at the moment quite a bit thinner than
> the coverage for lwlock.c.
Hmm, the coverage-html report is not currently covering contrib ... I
suppose that's an easily fixable
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-02-04 21:43:14 +, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.
>>
>> The previous RequestAddinLWLocks() method had several disadvantages.
>> First, the locks would be
19 matches
Mail list logo