Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 11/11/2015 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was thinking more of removing the "missing" script and associated logic
>> entirely, rather than making PGXS a special case. I think we should do
>> our best to minimize differences between behaviors in core builds and
>> PGXS builds, if only because we don't test the latter very much and
>> might not notice problems there.
> At least two buildfarm members (crake and sitella) build FDWs using
> PGXS. Of course, they aren't likely to uncover problems with missing
> perl/bison/flex - especially perl ;-) But I don't want people to get the
> idea we don't test PGXS regularly, because we do.
I know we have buildfarm coverage, but by its nature that's not going to
exercise scenarios like missing tools. You only find out about problems
of that ilk from manual testing in non-controlled environments. And
I think we have much more of that going on for the core build than for
any add-on.
regards, tom lane