Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
Date
Msg-id 20170214195940.lwutkfaz2vtehw7n@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-02-14 12:33:35 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/13/17 8:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-02-14 11:46:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > > I still fail to see why --use-existing as suggested in
> > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170208002900.vkldujzfkwbvqqq7@alap3.anarazel.de
> > > > isn't sufficient.
> > > 
> > > Some tests create objects without removing them, meaning that
> > > continuous runs would fail with only --use-existing. This patch brings
> > > value in such cases.
> > 
> > You can trivially script the CREATE/DROP DB outside with
> > --use-existing. Which seems a lot more flexible than adding more and
> > more options to pg_regress.
> 
> AFAIK if you're doing make check (as opposed to installcheck) it's
> significantly more complicated than that since you'd have to create a temp
> cluster/install yourself.

But in that case you can't have useful templates in the regression test
either, so the whole discussion is moot?



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_waldump's inclusion of backend headers is a mess
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN (was: removing tsearch2)