Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
Date
Msg-id CAGRY4nxSxDntba+uraRYKdNx-Jkm-kUVBCU=2jO65R+1DZscgA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress  (Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, 09:00 Michael Paquier, <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:06:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Other than src/test/modules/brin, the ISOLATION users don't look
> much like real extensions (rather than test scaffolding), either.
> If you discount test scaffolding modules then the use-counts are
> more like 4 to 1.

Out of core, the only thing I can see with isolation tests is rum, but
it uses a workaround to have an access to the necessary binaries.

I would've liked to backpatch but don't really care very much. If it's going to take time away from others things, don't do it. 

I landed up having to make my own lightly customised postgres packages to use as test workflow inputs anyway. So I included the full set of isolation test utilities, packaged the test inputs etc.

I'd prefer not to have to do it, but it's done. So long as it's fixed going forward it didn't matter that much.

Now server_version_num on the other hand ... :P

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: Online checksums verification in the backend
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: upcoming API changes for LLVM 12