Re: [HACKERS] PROVE_FLAGS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PROVE_FLAGS
Date
Msg-id 20170504045015.GF21223@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PROVE_FLAGS  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] PROVE_FLAGS
List pgsql-hackers
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Can someone please explain to me why we have this in Makefile.global.in?
> > (from commit e9c81b60 )
> >     PROVE_FLAGS =
>
> Before that commit it was like
>
>     PROVE_FLAGS = --verbose

right.

> which had some value.  I agree that now we'd be better off to not
> set it at all, especially since the convention now appears to be that
> automatically-supplied prove options should be set in PG_PROVE_FLAGS.

Good point.

> I'd suggest that the comment just above be replaced by something like
>
> # User-supplied prove flags can be provided in PROVE_FLAGS.

Works for me.

Thanks!

Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GCC 7 warnings
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS