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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PROVE_FLAGS
Date
Msg-id 8700.1493845353@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] PROVE_FLAGS  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] PROVE_FLAGS  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
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

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.

I'd suggest that the comment just above be replaced by something like

# User-supplied prove flags can be provided in PROVE_FLAGS.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"?
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining