Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:07:45PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On ons, 2011-04-27 at 18:14 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > > Enthusiastic +1 for this concept. There's at least one rough edge: it > > > fails if > > > you have another postmaster running on port 5432. > > > > This has now been addressed: pg_upgrade accepts PGPORT settings. > > Attached is a slightly updated patch runs the test suite with a port of > > 65432, which you can override by setting PGPORT yourself. > > > > Anyway, is this something that people want in the repository? It's not > > as polished as the pg_regress business, but it is definitely helpful. > > I'd like it. We've had bugs sit for months that would have been found > immediately by a buildfarm member running this test. Having it in the > repository at least opens up that possibility.
Yep, looks fine to me. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
