Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-11-24 Thread Craig Ringer
On 25 November 2016 at 02:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 27 October 2016 at 00:42, Robert Haas wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-11-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Craig Ringer wrote: > On 27 October 2016 at 00:42, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-11-14 Thread Craig Ringer
On 14 November 2016 at 14:55, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 27 October 2016 at 00:42, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Looking back over

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-11-13 Thread Craig Ringer
On 27 October 2016 at 00:42, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed installing >>> isolationtester and

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-10-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed installing >> isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress for the benefit of extensions. >> I'm very much less

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-10-26 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed installing > isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress for the benefit of extensions. > I'm very much less excited about that idea. It'd be substantially more > dead weight in typical

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-24 Thread Craig Ringer
On 24 Sep. 2016 04:04, "Tom Lane" wrote:. > > > > > It's thus sufficient to apply the patch to install the perl modules to > > 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6. Nothing else is needed. I've attached backports for > > 9.4 and 9.5. > > Pushed with cosmetic adjustments --- Thanks. > Looking

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-23 Thread Tom Lane
Craig Ringer writes: > On 23 September 2016 at 00:32, Tom Lane wrote: >> Certainly there are restrictions, but I'd imagine that every new release >> will be adding features to the TAP test infrastructure for some time to >> come. I think it's silly to

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-22 Thread Craig Ringer
On 23 September 2016 at 00:32, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> On 13 September 2016 at 22:02, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Without taking a position on the merits of this patch per se, I'd like >>> to say that I find the argument

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-22 Thread Tom Lane
Craig Ringer writes: > On 13 September 2016 at 22:02, Tom Lane wrote: >> Without taking a position on the merits of this patch per se, I'd like >> to say that I find the argument for back-patching into 9.6 and not >> further than that to be pretty

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-21 Thread Craig Ringer
On 13 September 2016 at 22:02, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> While updating an extension for 9.6 I noticed that while the >> $(prove_check) definition is exposed for use by PGXS in >> Makefile.global, extensions can't actually use the TAP

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-13 Thread Tom Lane
Craig Ringer writes: > While updating an extension for 9.6 I noticed that while the > $(prove_check) definition is exposed for use by PGXS in > Makefile.global, extensions can't actually use the TAP tests because > we don't install the required Perl modules like

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-13 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Craig Ringer wrote: > I suggest that the above patches be applied to 9.6 and v10. Then for > v10 I don't object to patching 9.6 in this way, but kindly do not pollute this thread with future ideas on what to do on pg10, at least until the current release is sorted out. You'll only distract

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-13 Thread Craig Ringer
On 13 September 2016 at 14:36, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > prove_check: > rm -rf $(CURDIR)/tmp_check/log > cd $(srcdir) && TESTDIR='$(CURDIR)' PATH="$(shell pg_config > --bindir):$$PATH" PGPORT='6$(DEF_PGPORT)' > top_builddir='$(CURDIR)/$(top_builddir)'

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-13 Thread Craig Ringer
On 13 September 2016 at 13:27, Craig Ringer wrote: > This was wrong for out-of-tree builds, updated. > > Still pending fix for PG_REGRESS path when invoked using > $(prove_check) from PGXS Looking further at this, I think a pgxs-specific patch to add support for prove

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-12 Thread Craig Ringer
This was wrong for out-of-tree builds, updated. Still pending fix for PG_REGRESS path when invoked using $(prove_check) from PGXS -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services From

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

2016-09-12 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-09-13 10:54:01 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > [zap] Uhm, empty email ;) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers