Re: "make installcheck" fails in src/test/recovery

2019-04-18 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: "make installcheck" fails in src/test/recovery

2019-04-18 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: "make installcheck" fails in src/test/recovery

2019-04-18 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: "make installcheck" fails in src/test/recovery

2019-04-18 Thread Michael Paquier
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

"make installcheck" fails in src/test/recovery

2019-04-17 Thread Tom Lane
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