Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 3/27/20 11:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems like what the buildfarm would like is a way to invoke TAP tests
>> and traditional-framework tests separately, so that it could apply special
>> tooling to the former. I'd have no objection to making that possible.
> Exact
On 3/27/20 11:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Right now the explicit TAP test code in the buildfarm knows how to collect
>> all the relevant output. The installcheck code doesn't know about that for
>> TAP tests.
> It seems like what the buildfarm would like is a way to invoke TAP tests
> and trad
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> [discussion from -committers]
> On 3/26/20 4:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So? We clearly document that for the TAP tests, "make installcheck"
>> means "use the installed executables, but run a new instance" [1].
> I think we were probably a bit shortsighted about that. But
[discussion from -committers]
On 3/26/20 4:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 3/26/20 11:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
I don't think this belongs in installcheck, we should add
'NO_INSTALLCHECK = 1' to the Makefile.
>>> Why? The other src/test
