Bruce Momjian writes: > Amazing you find 688 bytes worth discussing. I know you said "what > happens if everyone adds their scripts", but something that would be a > mess if everyone did it isn't always a proper way to judge if something > is appropriate.
I said, if everyone adds their test methodologies. That leads to discrepancies, more of them down the road if one method changes and the other doesn't catch up. For instance, your method just calls pg_ctl, createdb, etc. from the path. If people already have a stable installation of PostgreSQL on their machine, then this will test the wrong installation. So, from now on, if someone submits a test result I have to ask, "which method did you use" -- "don't use that method, because it's wrong". That is one instance, and I'm sure you'll fix it, but there might be more. What I'm saying is, we were in a discussion about improving the testing of PostgreSQL, and this is not a step forward. If we need to improve the testing mechanisms for various purposes -- patch application, automated testing, etc. -- let's look at it and see how we can improve the current infrastructure without inventing a parallel one. At this point, I'm not sure why "make check" doesn't serve you. Perhaps you are not fully aware of what it does (I guess so, from looking at your script). -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
