Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor Perl test code

Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> BTW, not the fault of this patch in particular, but this example points > >> up the complaint I've had right along about how opaque TAP test failures

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor Perl test code

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> Well, it showed up on my terminal... >> Not on mine, as per the extract I showed. Probably a Perl version >> difference, but I don't think we can exactly write off RHEL6

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor Perl test code

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> BTW, not the fault of this patch in particular, but this example points >>> up the complaint I've

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor Perl test code

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, not the fault of this patch in particular, but this example points > up the complaint I've had right along about how opaque TAP test failures > are. How did you dig down to see that error message? Well, it showed up on

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor Perl test code

Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Test Summary Report >> --- >> t/001_initdb.pl (Wstat: 6400 Tests: 8 Failed: 0) >> Non-zero exit status: 25 >> Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 14 tests but ran 8. >>

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor Perl test code

Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> BTW, not the fault of this patch in particular, but this example points >> up the complaint I've had right along about how opaque TAP test failures >> are. How did you