Re: [patch] extensions_path GUC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: [patch] extensions_path GUC
Date
Msg-id 7D65E4AE-7452-4140-A69A-2D42842BA34D@justatheory.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [patch] extensions_path GUC  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Oct 23, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> wrote:

> I would love it if make check worked. make installcheck adds extra effort to extension develoopment, not to mention
leavingyour actual install in a less than pristine state. 

I’ve wanted this for a long time. I think it would have to create a temporary cluster, fire up a server, install the
extension(s),run the tests, shut down the server and delete the cluster. 

> Possibly related to this... I'd also like to have other options for running unit tests, besides pg_regress. I looked
atit briefly and the big PITA about doing it was having to manage the temporary database (and ideally temporary
cluster).If standing those up was separated from pg_regress it would make it a lot easier for someone to customize how
testingworks under PGXS. 

Right, then pg_regress could just be the default test framework.

Dvaid


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work