On 2016-11-14 12:14:10 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit
> > >> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here.
> >
> > > I had that at first, but that generates a warning about overwriting the
> > > makefile target - which afaics cannot be fixed.
> >
> > Hm. What about inventing an additional macro NO_INSTALLCHECK that
> > prevents pgxs.mk from generating an installcheck rule? It's not
> > like we don't have similar issues elsewhere, eg contrib/sepgsql.
>
> Well, that one seems a bit different. Seems easy enough to do. Do we
> want to make that macro that prevents installcheck from being defined,
> or one that forces it to be empty? The former has the disadvantage that
> one has to be careful to define a target, to avoid breaking recursion
> from the upper levels.
Oh, that disadvantage doesn't actually exist, because installcheck is a
.PHONY target...
I've for now not added a variant that prevents plain 'make check' from
doing anything. I guess it could be useful when a contrib module wants
to run tests via something else than pg_regress?
Patch attached.
Andres