On 13/09/2024 13:41, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 4:28 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Once this is done, I think we can mark this CF entry as RFC.
Thanks for the changes. I applied all of them in respective patches.
Thanks a lot. PFA the patchset with
1. Improved comment rel
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 4:28 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> >
> > Once this is done, I think we can mark this CF entry as RFC.
>
> Thanks for the changes. I applied all of them in respective patches.
Thanks a lot. PFA the patchset with
1. Improved comment related to PG_TEST_EXTRA in meson.build.
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 12:35, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Here's what I understand, please correct me: The code in meson.build
> is only called at the time of setup; not during meson test. Hence we
> can not check the existence of a runtime environment variable in that
> file. The things in te
Thanks Nazir,
> > -# Test suites that are not safe by default but can be run if selected
> > -# by the user via the whitespace-separated list in variable PG_TEST_EXTRA.
> > -# Export PG_TEST_EXTRA so it can be checked in individual tap tests.
> > -test_env.set('PG_TEST_EXTRA', get_option('PG_TEST_
Hi,
On Wed, 11 Sept 2024 at 13:04, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Thanks Bilal for testing the patch. Can you or Jacob please create one
> patchset including both meson and make fixes? Please keep the meson
> and make changes in separate patches though. I think the meson patches
> come from [1] (they
On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 8:32 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 21:36, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:21 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz
> > wrote:
> > > I do not exactly remember the reason but I think I copied the same
> > > behavior as before, PG_TE
Hi,
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 21:36, Jacob Champion
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:21 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > I do not exactly remember the reason but I think I copied the same
> > behavior as before, PG_TEST_EXTRA variable was checked in the
> > src/test/Makefile so I exported it the
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:21 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> I do not exactly remember the reason but I think I copied the same
> behavior as before, PG_TEST_EXTRA variable was checked in the
> src/test/Makefile so I exported it there.
Okay, give v3 a try then. This exports directly from Makefile.g
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:46 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Also, I think TEST 110 and 170 do not look correct to me. In the
> current way, we do not pass PG_TEST_EXTRA to the make command.
>
> 110 should be:
> 'cd $XID_MODULE_DIR && PG_TEST_EXTRA=xid_wraparound make check'
> instead of 'PG_TEST_
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 18:11, Jacob Champion
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 6:41 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > Nazir, since you authored c3382a3c3cc, can you please provide input
> > that Jacob needs?
>
> Specifically, why the PG_TEST_EXTRA variable was being exported at the
> src/test
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:41, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:26 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 9:55 PM Jacob Champion
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:59 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> > > wrote:
> > > > If I run
> > > > export PG_TEST_
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 6:41 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Nazir, since you authored c3382a3c3cc, can you please provide input
> that Jacob needs?
Specifically, why the PG_TEST_EXTRA variable was being exported at the
src/test level only. If there's no longer a use case being targeted,
we can always
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:26 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 9:55 PM Jacob Champion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:59 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > > If I run
> > > export PG_TEST_EXTRA=xid_wraparound; ./configure --prefix=$BuildDir
> > > --enable-tap-tests &&
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:59 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> If I run
> export PG_TEST_EXTRA=xid_wraparound; ./configure --prefix=$BuildDir
> --enable-tap-tests && make -j4 && make -j4 install; unset
> PG_TEST_EXTRA
> followed by
> make -C $XID_MODULE_DIR check where
> XID_MODULE_DIR=src/test/modules/x
Hi Jacob,
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 6:19 PM Jacob Champion
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 9:07 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > > I'm not entirely sure what you mean? src/test should work fine,
> > > anything lower than that (say src/test/ssl) does not.
> >
> > I could run them from src/test/mod
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 9:07 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure what you mean? src/test should work fine,
> > anything lower than that (say src/test/ssl) does not.
>
> I could run them from src/test/modules/xid_wraparound/. That's desirable.
On my machine, storing xid_wraparound i
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:24 AM Jacob Champion
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 2:26 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > Here are my observations with the patch applied
> > 1. If I run configure without setting PG_TEST_EXTRA, it won't run the
> > tests that require PG_TEST_EXTRA to be set. This is ex
On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 2:26 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Here are my observations with the patch applied
> 1. If I run configure without setting PG_TEST_EXTRA, it won't run the
> tests that require PG_TEST_EXTRA to be set. This is expected.
> 2. But it wont' run tests even if PG_TEST_EXTRA is set wh
On 2024-08-09 Fr 5:26 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I this the patch lacks overriding PG_TEST_EXTRA at run time.
AFAIU, following was expected behaviour from both meson and make.
Please correct if I am wrong.
1. If PG_TEST_EXTRA is set at the setup/configuration time, it is not
required to be set a
Hi Jacob,
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:54 PM Jacob Champion
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 3:32 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > Upthread Jacob said he could work on a patch about introducing the
> > PG_TEST_EXTRA configure option to make builds. Would you still be
> > interested in working on t
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 3:32 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> Upthread Jacob said he could work on a patch about introducing the
> PG_TEST_EXTRA configure option to make builds. Would you still be
> interested in working on this? If not, I would gladly work on it.
Sure! Attached is a minimalist appr
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 13:40, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:02 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder whether we really require pg_test_extra argument to testwrap.
> > > Why can't we use the logic in testwrap, to set run time PG_TEST_EXTRA,
> > > in meson.build
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:02 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> > I wonder whether we really require pg_test_extra argument to testwrap.
> > Why can't we use the logic in testwrap, to set run time PG_TEST_EXTRA,
> > in meson.build directly? I.e. set test_env['PG_TEST_EXTRA'] to
> > os.environ[;PG_TES
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 12:26, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Upthread Tom asked whether we should do a symmetric change to "make".
> This set of patches does not do that. Here are my thoughts:
> 1. Those who use make, are not using configure time PG_TEST_EXTRA
> anyway, so they don't need it.
> 2.
Hi Nazir,
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:37 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> >
> > If you are willing to work on this further, please add it to the commitfest.
>
> Since general consensus is more towards having an environment variable
> to override Meson configure option, I converted solution-3 to
> som
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:13, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> If you are willing to work on this further, please add it to the commitfest.
Since general consensus is more towards having an environment variable
to override Meson configure option, I converted solution-3 to
something more like a patc
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:11 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Ah. I have no particular objection to that, but I wonder whether
> we should make the autoconf/makefile infrastructure do it too.
I don't need it personally, having moved almost entirely to Meson. But
if the asymmetry is a sticking point, I can
Jacob Champion writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 8:01 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> The existing and documented expectation is that PG_TEST_EXTRA is an
>> environment variable, ie it's a runtime option not a configure option.
>> Making it be the latter seems like a significant loss of flexibility
>> to m
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 8:01 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Jacob Champion writes:
> > Personally I use the config-time PG_TEST_EXTRA extensively. I'd be sad
> > to see it go, especially if developers are no longer forced to use it.
>
> The existing and documented expectation is that PG_TEST_EXTRA is an
>
On 2024-07-17 We 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jacob Champion writes:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:34 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Sorry, the previous reply was wrong; I misunderstood what you said.
Yes, that is how the patch was coded and I agree that getting rid of
config time PG_TEST_EXTRA could
Jacob Champion writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:34 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>> Sorry, the previous reply was wrong; I misunderstood what you said.
>> Yes, that is how the patch was coded and I agree that getting rid of
>> config time PG_TEST_EXTRA could be a better alternative.
> Personall
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:34 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> Sorry, the previous reply was wrong; I misunderstood what you said.
> Yes, that is how the patch was coded and I agree that getting rid of
> config time PG_TEST_EXTRA could be a better alternative.
Personally I use the config-time PG_TEST
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:23, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:13, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > xid_wraparound tests are run if PG_TEST_EXTRA contains xid_wraparound
> > or it is not set. Any other setting will not run xid_wraparound test.
> > That's how the patc
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:13, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> xid_wraparound tests are run if PG_TEST_EXTRA contains xid_wraparound
> or it is not set. Any other setting will not run xid_wraparound test.
> That's how the patch is coded but it isn't intuitive that changing
> whether a test is run by d
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:31 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 00:27, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 2:12 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 2- If PG_TEST_EXTRA is set from the setup command, use it from the
> > > setup command and
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 00:27, Jacob Champion
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 2:12 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> >
> > 2- If PG_TEST_EXTRA is set from the setup command, use it from the
> > setup command and discard the environment variable. If PG_TEST_EXTRA
> > is not set from the setup c
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 2:12 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> 2- If PG_TEST_EXTRA is set from the setup command, use it from the
> setup command and discard the environment variable. If PG_TEST_EXTRA
> is not set from the setup command, then use it from the environment.
Is there a way for the envi
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 at 09:30, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> In order to run these tests, we have to run meson setup again. There
> are couple of problems with this
> 1. It's not clear why the tests were skipped. Also not clear that we
> have to run meson setup again - from the output alone
> 2. R
Hi All,
Using PG_TEST_EXTRA with make is simple, one just sets that environment variable
$ make check
... snip ...
PG_REGRESS='/home/ashutosh/work/units/pghead_make/coderoot/pg/src/test/modules/xid_wraparound/../../../../src/test/regress/pg_regress'
/usr/bin/prove -I ../../../../src/test/perl/ -I
39 matches
Mail list logo
