On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:08:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Nathan Wagner <nw...@hydaspes.if.org> writes: > > Second, it would be convenient if there were a make target that would > > set up a test environment. Effectively do what the 'make check' does, > > but don't run the tests and leave the database up. It should probably > > drop you into a shell that has the paths set up as well. Another > > target should be available to shut it down. > > As far as that goes, I don't think it's really the makefiles' place to > establish a manual-testing convention. What I do, and what I think > most other longtimers do, is create test installations in nondefault > places.
[snip description on how to set this up ] > You could imagine putting something into the standard makefiles > that did some subset of this, but I think it would be too rigid > to be useful. I think it would be very useful to just be able to tell the system "fire this up for me so I can test it". I don't think it needs to handle every possible testing scenario, just making it easier to leave up the test postmaster from make check would be very useful, at least to me. > As an example, what if you wanted to compare the behaviors of both > unmodified HEAD and your patched code? It's not very hard to set up > two temporary installations along the lines of the recipe I've just > given, but I can't see the makefiles handling that. They could pick up make or environment variables. We already do that for psql. Something like PGPORT=5495 PGPATH=~/pg95 make startit or some such. I'm not actually proposing this, I'm just noting how the makefiles could handle it fairly easily. All I'd really like is a way to leave the database used for 'make check' running so I can do any additional poking around by hand that I might want to do more easily. -- nw -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
