Wow, I am impressed by 'gmake check'. Who did all that work? It is great.
I modified tools/pgtest to use 'gmake check'. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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] > > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
