On 08/10/2015 10:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 08/10/2015 09:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 08/09/2015 08:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Sure. Attached is what I have in mind. Contrary to your version we
keep around temp paths should a run succeed after one that has fai
On 08/10/2015 09:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 08/09/2015 08:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Sure. Attached is what I have in mind. Contrary to your version we
keep around temp paths should a run succeed after one that has failed
when running make check multiple times in a r
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 08/09/2015 08:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Sure. Attached is what I have in mind. Contrary to your version we
>> keep around temp paths should a run succeed after one that has failed
>> when running make check multiple times in a row. Perhaps it does not
>> matter m
On 08/09/2015 08:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 08/09/2015 08:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
On 08/08/2015 09:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Dun
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/09/2015 08:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/08/2015 09:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
>
On 08/09/2015 08:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 08/08/2015 09:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
That certainly isn't what happens, and given the way this is done in
TestLib.pm, using the C
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2015 09:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Dunstan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That certainly isn't what happens, and given the way this is done in
>>> TestLib.pm, using the CLEANUP parameter of File::Tem
On 08/08/2015 09:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That certainly isn't what happens, and given the way this is done in
TestLib.pm, using the CLEANUP parameter of File::Temp's tempdir() function,
it's not clear how we could do that easily.
Set c
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> That certainly isn't what happens, and given the way this is done in
> TestLib.pm, using the CLEANUP parameter of File::Temp's tempdir() function,
> it's not clear how we could do that easily.
Set cleanup to false and manually remove the d
On 08/07/2015 05:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
One of the things that makes the TAP tests very difficult and annoying
to debug is their insistence on removing their data directories. I'm not
sure why they are doing that. We don't do that with pg_regress. Instead
we have clean t
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> One of the things that makes the TAP tests very difficult and annoying
> to debug is their insistence on removing their data directories. I'm not
> sure why they are doing that. We don't do that with pg_regress. Instead
> we have clean targets to remove them if necessar
One of the things that makes the TAP tests very difficult and annoying
to debug is their insistence on removing their data directories. I'm not
sure why they are doing that. We don't do that with pg_regress. Instead
we have clean targets to remove them if necessary. I suggest that we
either dis
12 matches
Mail list logo
