On 04/08/2017 02:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 04/08/2017 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
I think it's partially knowing which target failed, and which
regression.diffs to display. If we were able to revamp check-world so
it outputs a list of targets the
On 04/08/2017 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> I think it's partially knowing which target failed, and which
>>> regression.diffs to display. If we were able to revamp check-world so
>>> it outputs a list of targets the regression machinery were able to run
>>> individuall
On 04/08/2017 05:26 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Yes, I don't want just to run check-world.
I am aware of a few test sets that need to be added, and I'm planning on
doing that this weekend, in fact. Specifically: recovery, subscription,
authentication and SSL. Peter Eisentraut raised this with me a
Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> I think it's partially knowing which target failed, and which
>> regression.diffs to display. If we were able to revamp check-world so
>> it outputs a list of targets the regression machinery were able to run
>> individually, it'd probably help?
> Yes, I don't want just
On 04/08/2017 10:11 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Forwarded Message
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Running make check-world in buildfarm (was Re:
> [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use SASLprep to normalize passwords for SCRAM
> authentication.)
> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 07:05:54 -070