Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions

Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
> Committed that, thanks.

Buildfarm member snakefly doesn't like this too much.  Since no other
animals have failed, I guess it must be about local conditions on
that machine, but the report is pretty opaque:

# +++ tap check in src/test/modules/test_extensions +++

#   Failed test '$system extension is installed correctly on pg_available_extensions'
#   at t/001_extension_control_path.pl line 69.
#          got: 'f'
#     expected: 't'

#   Failed test '$system extension is installed correctly on pg_available_extensions with empty extension_control_path'
#   at t/001_extension_control_path.pl line 76.
#          got: 'f'
#     expected: 't'
# Looks like you failed 2 tests of 5.
[06:43:53] t/001_extension_control_path.pl ..
Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
Failed 2/5 subtests

Looking at the test, it presupposes that "amcheck" must be an
available extension.  I do not see anything that guarantees
that that's so, though.  It'd fail if contrib hasn't been
installed.  Is there a reason to use "amcheck" rather than
something more certainly available, like "plpgsql"?

            regards, tom lane