Re: [HACKERS] installcheck vs regression DLLs
> > what really is the motivation for keeping some of the tested binaries in > > the sourcetree when doing installcheck? > > As opposed to what? We're certainly not going to *install* regress.so, > and I can't see requiring contrib to be there either. These are test > files, not part of the installation-under-test. That would've been my suggestion since I'd say they're both. But if that's not happening and nobody has a better idea, then workaround it is. I'll try to make it as non-ugly as I can. /Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] installcheck vs regression DLLs
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > what really is the motivation for keeping some of the tested binaries in the > sourcetree when doing installcheck? As opposed to what? We're certainly not going to *install* regress.so, and I can't see requiring contrib to be there either. These are test files, not part of the installation-under-test. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] installcheck vs regression DLLs
> > Would it make sense to have a standard way to run the regression tests > > against DLL files on the *installed* system? > > The RPMs do this, but their solution is pretty darn ugly: ship the test > files along with a custom Makefile (and I think they have to patch the > test files, too). I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the trouble. > It's just to avoid the ugliness i thought we might want to provide something like this in core. Otherwise there will be localized ugliness in the different packages because it has to be solved somehow. what really is the motivation for keeping some of the tested binaries in the sourcetree when doing installcheck? /Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] installcheck vs regression DLLs
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would it make sense to have a standard way to run the regression tests > against DLL files on the *installed* system? The RPMs do this, but their solution is pretty darn ugly: ship the test files along with a custom Makefile (and I think they have to patch the test files, too). I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the trouble. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
