Hi, On 2022-02-21 12:40:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2022-02-21 12:05:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> except maybe the "running on port 51696 with PID 1156405" line (and I'm not > >> too wedded to that)? > > > We still have a few issues with ports conflicts on windows. We should really > > consider just desupporting all windows versions without unix socket > > support. But until then it seems useful to be able to figure out random > > failures. > > Yeah, also it seems useful to distinguish installcheck and check cases. > With context removed, it might not make as much sense as it does today, > so I'd vote for adding a word or two. Perhaps the output could > look like > > test postmaster started on port 51696 with PID 1156405 > "testname ... ok" lines here > test postmaster stopped > "all tests passed" or "n tests passed" here
I'm all for something minimal like this. I guess we could just try to go for a tap compatible output, but it'd probably be too annoying to not see the test name when it starts. Perhaps we could still take a page out of tap's book, and denote non-test output lines by starting with an #, so it's visually obvious what are lines about tests? It'd probably not be a good idea to backpatch this, even if it'd be nice to have at least semi-consistent formatting across branches? Too likely somebody built scripts depending on the old format? > >> It'd also be a good idea to start using "make -s" by default for the > >> preparatory steps. > > > For the temp-install and checkprep targets, or for something else? That'd > > probably just be a few @'s in front of rm, mkdir? > > Well, all that stuff is interesting only in case of a failure. > > One thing with temp-install that's been bothering me is that it often hides > > compilation failures inside install.log, > > Yeah, I've run into that too --- even if there's no failure, you'll > never see any compiler warnings. Perhaps if we started using > "make -s" we'd not need install.log at all, and could just let > errors/warnings spew to stderr where the user would see 'em. WFM. I'd still like to address the issue of building contrib with -j1 (due to checkprep ending up building contrib). But we can do that separately too. I assume we'd want to do this in all branches? Greetings, Andres Freund
