Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check
Date
Msg-id 17622.1493133234@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 04/25/2017 10:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I agree entirely that it's confusing as heck. +1 for inventing a new name.

>> Yeah.  I would have expected installcheck to just skip any tests that
>> don't make sense against an already-installed cluster.  I would not
>> expect it to run those tests against some cluster other than the
>> installed cluster.  That seems super-weird.

> I'm in the process of moving all the buildfarm tests to use check
> instead of installcheck, but in such a way that it doesn't constantly
> generate redundant installs.

But is that something only of interest to the buildfarm, or should we
do something in the Makefile infrastructure to make it more generally
available?
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dmitriy Sarafannikov
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Use SnapshotAny in get_actual_variable_range
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes