Re: test runner (was Re: SQL-standard function body)

2021-04-11 Thread Corey Huinker
> > > This is nice. Are there any parallelism capabilities? > > Yes. It defaults to number-of-cores processes, but obviously can also be > specified explicitly. One very nice part about it is that it'd work > largely the same on windows (which has practically unusable testing > right now). It prob

Re: test runner (was Re: SQL-standard function body)

2021-04-08 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2021-04-09 08:39:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > Obviously all very far from being ready, but this seemed like a good > > enough excuse to mention it ;) > > This is nice. Are there any parallelism capabilities? Yes. It

Re: test runner (was Re: SQL-standard function body)

2021-04-08 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Obviously all very far from being ready, but this seemed like a good > enough excuse to mention it ;) This is nice. Are there any parallelism capabilities? -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: test runner (was Re: SQL-standard function body)

2021-04-08 Thread Andres Freund
On 2021-04-08 10:50:39 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > It's hard to convey just how much nicer it is to see a progress report > during the test, see the failing tests at the end, without needing to > wade through reams of log output. The output of the individual tests is > in testlog.txt referenced

test runner (was Re: SQL-standard function body)

2021-04-08 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, This started out as a reply to https://postgr.es/m/20210408170802.GA9392%40alvherre.pgsql but it's independent enough to just start a new thread... On 2021-04-08 13:08:02 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Yes, coverage.pg.org runs "make check-world". > > Maybe it would make sense to change that