On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:56:01PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 4 Apr 2024, at 22:47, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 4:25 PM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: > >>> I don't disagree, like I said that very email: it's non-trivial and I > >>> wish we > >>> could make it better somehow, but I don't hav an abundance of good ideas. > > > >> Is the basic issue that we can't rely on the necessary toolchain to be > >> present on every machine where someone might try to build PostgreSQL? > > > > IIUC, it's not really that, but that regenerating these files is > > expensive; multiple seconds even on fast machines. Putting that > > into tests that are run many times a day is unappetizing. > > That's one aspect of it. We could cache the results of course to amortize the > cost over multiple test-runs but at the end of the day it will add time to > test-runs regardless of what we do. > > One thing to consider would be to try and rearrange/refactor the tests to > require a smaller set of keys and certificates. I haven't looked into what > sort of savings that could yield (if any) but if we go the route of > regeneration at test-time we shouldn't leave potential savings on the table.
Rather then everyone testing it on every build, couldn't we have an automated test every night that checked binary files. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
