On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:23:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The dependency is not strongly mandatory for the test coverage. I'll
> just go remove it if that's an annoyance.
And done.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:31:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we think that depending on pageinspect is worthwhile here, the right
> thing to do is just to fix the README to say that you need it. I'm
> merely asking whether it's really worth the extra dependency.
The dependency is not strongly m
Michael Paquier writes:
> I am wondering if it would be better to just install automatically all
> the paths listed in EXTRA_INSTALL when invoking installcheck.
Absolutely not! In the first place, "make installcheck" is supposed to
test the installed tree, not editorialize upon what's in it; and
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 01:45:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is this extra dependency actually essential? I'm not really
> happy about increasing the number of moving parts in this test.
Hmmm. I don't actually object to removing the part depending on
pageinspect in the tests. Relying on the on-d
Up until quite recently, it worked to do "make installcheck" in
src/test/recovery, following the instructions in the README
file there:
NOTE: You must have given the --enable-tap-tests argument to configure.
Also, to use "make installcheck", you must have built and installed
contrib/te