Wow, I am impressed by 'gmake check'. Who did all that work? It is
great.
I modified tools/pgtest to use 'gmake check'. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > Amazing you find 688 bytes worth discussing. I know you said "what
> > happens if everyone adds their scripts", but something that would be a
> > mess if everyone did it isn't always a proper way to judge if something
> > is appropriate.
>
> I said, if everyone adds their test methodologies. That leads to
> discrepancies, more of them down the road if one method changes and the
> other doesn't catch up. For instance, your method just calls pg_ctl,
> createdb, etc. from the path. If people already have a stable
> installation of PostgreSQL on their machine, then this will test the wrong
> installation. So, from now on, if someone submits a test result I have to
> ask, "which method did you use" -- "don't use that method, because it's
> wrong". That is one instance, and I'm sure you'll fix it, but there might
> be more. What I'm saying is, we were in a discussion about improving the
> testing of PostgreSQL, and this is not a step forward. If we need to
> improve the testing mechanisms for various purposes -- patch application,
> automated testing, etc. -- let's look at it and see how we can improve the
> current infrastructure without inventing a parallel one. At this point,
> I'm not sure why "make check" doesn't serve you. Perhaps you are not
> fully aware of what it does (I guess so, from looking at your script).
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
>
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073