Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
> >>> are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular
> >>> bikeshed-painting discussion. Look at the amount of trouble we're
> >>> having converging on a default for the regression tests, which are
> >>> a far narrower use-case than "everybody".
>
> >> Well, practically anything that includes a PID and the timestamp is
> >> going to be an improvement over the status quo. Just because we can't
> >> all agree on what would be perfect does not mean that we can't do
> >> better than what we've got now. +1 for trying.
>
> > Is there any chance we can move forward here, or is this effort doomed for now?
>
> It seemed like nobody wanted to try to push this forward, and it will take
> somebody actively pushing, IMO, for something to happen.
>
> Perhaps we should first try to get a consensus on the regression test
> use-case.
I thought Peter's suggestion for regression test drivers was a good one
and I see no reason to block that. Why do you (Tom) object so strongly
against having a different one on buildfarm than elsewhere? I'd rather
have buildfarm adopt the new suggestion than having buildfarm drive the
new stuff.
Adopting a default prefix is a different question. For one thing IMHO
it should not have %a (application name). Christoph's suggestion
(Debian's default) seemed good.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
