On 25 November 2016 at 02:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 27 October 2016 at 00:42, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >>> Looking back over the thread, I see that you also pro
Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 27 October 2016 at 00:42, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed installing
> >>> isolationtester and pg_isolation_reg
On 14 November 2016 at 14:55, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 27 October 2016 at 00:42, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed installing
isolation
On 27 October 2016 at 00:42, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed installing
>>> isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress for the benefit of extens
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed installing
>> isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress for the benefit of extensions.
>> I'm very much less excited about that idea.
On 2016-09-23 16:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Looking back over the thread, I see that you also proposed installing
> isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress for the benefit of extensions.
> I'm very much less excited about that idea. It'd be substantially more
> dead weight in typical installa
On 24 Sep. 2016 04:04, "Tom Lane" wrote:.
>
> >
> > It's thus sufficient to apply the patch to install the perl modules to
> > 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6. Nothing else is needed. I've attached backports for
> > 9.4 and 9.5.
>
> Pushed with cosmetic adjustments ---
Thanks.
> Looking back over the thread, I
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 23 September 2016 at 00:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Certainly there are restrictions, but I'd imagine that every new release
>> will be adding features to the TAP test infrastructure for some time to
>> come. I think it's silly to claim that 9.6 is the first branch where
>>
On 23 September 2016 at 00:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
>> On 13 September 2016 at 22:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Without taking a position on the merits of this patch per se, I'd like
>>> to say that I find the argument for back-patching into 9.6 and not
>>> further than that to be pr
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 13 September 2016 at 22:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Without taking a position on the merits of this patch per se, I'd like
>> to say that I find the argument for back-patching into 9.6 and not
>> further than that to be pretty dubious. $(prove_check) has been there
>> since
On 13 September 2016 at 22:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
>> While updating an extension for 9.6 I noticed that while the
>> $(prove_check) definition is exposed for use by PGXS in
>> Makefile.global, extensions can't actually use the TAP tests because
>> we don't install the required
Craig Ringer writes:
> While updating an extension for 9.6 I noticed that while the
> $(prove_check) definition is exposed for use by PGXS in
> Makefile.global, extensions can't actually use the TAP tests because
> we don't install the required Perl modules like PostgresNode.pm.
> I don't see any
Craig Ringer wrote:
> I suggest that the above patches be applied to 9.6 and v10. Then for
> v10
I don't object to patching 9.6 in this way, but kindly do not pollute
this thread with future ideas on what to do on pg10, at least until the
current release is sorted out. You'll only distract peopl
On 13 September 2016 at 14:36, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>
> prove_check:
> rm -rf $(CURDIR)/tmp_check/log
> cd $(srcdir) && TESTDIR='$(CURDIR)' PATH="$(shell pg_config
> --bindir):$$PATH" PGPORT='6$(DEF_PGPORT)'
> top_builddir='$(CURDIR)/$(top_builddir)' PG_REGRESS='pg_regress'
> $(P
On 13 September 2016 at 13:27, Craig Ringer wrote:
> This was wrong for out-of-tree builds, updated.
>
> Still pending fix for PG_REGRESS path when invoked using
> $(prove_check) from PGXS
Looking further at this, I think a pgxs-specific patch to add support
for prove tests and isolation tests wo
This was wrong for out-of-tree builds, updated.
Still pending fix for PG_REGRESS path when invoked using
$(prove_check) from PGXS
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From 462a0ab51935b45d17820b83b8e9f6abd4ad29
Hi all
While updating an extension for 9.6 I noticed that while the
$(prove_check) definition is exposed for use by PGXS in
Makefile.global, extensions can't actually use the TAP tests because
we don't install the required Perl modules like PostgresNode.pm.
I don't see any reason not to make this
On 2016-09-13 10:54:01 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> [zap]
Uhm, empty email ;)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
19 matches
Mail list logo
