ation
for what you can implement yourself in your extension's makefile.
From d08218d36d4590f80c2d46f3d7c30bee3e35b7e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 14:00:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v0] WIP: Support "make check" for PGXS extensions
---
s
On Mar 27, 2025, at 12:21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Interesting. I think to support that, we would need to do a temp install
> kind of thing of the extension, and then point the path settings into that
> temp install directory. Which is probably more sensible anyway.
If it runs against a te
On 20.03.25 18:20, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Mar 20, 2025, at 09:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch. With this little
additional patch, you can now run "make check" in PGXS-using extensions
(instead of having to do make install; make i
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 1:57 PM Joe Conway wrote:
> > I LOVE this idea!
> +many
Same here. But I also agree with Andrew that it would be fantastic if
TAP tests could be made to work, too. Yet, anything beats nothing!
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On 2025-03-20 Th 9:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch. With
this little additional patch, you can now run "make check" in
PGXS-using extensions (instead of having to do make install; make
installcheck with a running instance). I thin
On 3/20/25 13:20, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Mar 20, 2025, at 09:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch.
With this little additional patch, you can now run "make check" in
PGXS-using extensions (instead of having to do make install; make
ins
On Mar 20, 2025, at 09:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch. With this
> little additional patch, you can now run "make check" in PGXS-using
> extensions (instead of having to do make install; make installcheck with a
> running instance
