Hi,
On 2022-05-27 09:05:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 07:51:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I wouldn't object to doing that, and even back-patching. It looked
> > like a pretty sane change, and we've learned before that skimping on
> > back-branch test infrastructure is a poor tradeoff.
>
> Okay, fine by me. Andres, what do you think about backpatching [1]?
>
> [1]: https://github.com/anarazel/postgres/commit/e754bde6d0d3cb6329a5bf568e19eb271c3bdc7c
Well, committing and backpatching ;)
I suspect there might be a bit more polish might be needed - that's why I
hadn't proposed the commit on its own yet. I was also wondering about
proposing a different split (test data, test logs).
I don't even know if we still need TESTDIR - since f4ce6c4d3a3 we add the
build dir to PATH, which IIUC was the reason for TESTDIR previously. Afaics
after f4ce6c4d3a3 and the TESTOUTDIR split the only TESTDIR use is in
src/tools/msvc/ecpg_regression.proj - so we could at least restrict it to
that.
Stuff I noticed on a quick skim:
> # In a VPATH build, we'll be started in the source directory, but we want
> # to run in the build directory so that we can use relative paths to
> # access the tmp_check subdirectory; otherwise the output from filename
> # completion tests is too variable.
Just needs a bit of rephrasing.
> # Determine output directories, and create them. The base path is the
> # TESTDIR environment variable, which is normally set by the invoking
> # Makefile.
> $tmp_check = $ENV{TESTOUTDIR} ? "$ENV{TESTOUTDIR}" : "tmp_check";
> $log_path = "$tmp_check/log";
Probably just needs a s/TESTDIR/TESTOUTDIR/
Greetings,
Andres Freund