Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Log Message:
>> -----------
>> Reduce risk of accidentally running temp-install regression tests against
>> a mismatching installation.
> This has apparently broken the ECPG tests - see buildfarm where multiple
> members are red.
Yes, ecpg is still using the temp-port parameter that Peter removed :-(.
I have temporarily turned things green again (I think) by making ecpg
use --port instead, which is the new spelling of --temp-port. However,
this is not really satisfactory because it negates the whole point of
Peter's patch, namely to have a less brittle way of selecting the
temp port. But it looks like the temp port number is actually wired
into some of the ecpg tests' expected results, and so getting rid of it
is not as easy as one could wish.
Michael, could you look at removing that dependency so we can let
pg_regress.c select the port number as it wishes? If it's not practical
to suppress the port number in the regression test output, maybe things
could be changed so that pg_regress.c itself substitutes in the port
number it's chosen.
regards, tom lane