Re: SQL-standard function body - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: SQL-standard function body
Date
Msg-id YG+LLyuymgI4BH2L@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL-standard function body  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:21:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I see that contrib/test_decoding also sets NO_INSTALLCHECK = 1,
> and the reason it gets tested is that the buildfarm script has
> a special module for that.  I guess we need to clone that module,
> or maybe better, find a way to generalize it.
>
> There are also some src/test/modules modules that set NO_INSTALLCHECK,
> but apparently those do have coverage (modules-check is the step that
> runs their SQL tests, and then the TAP tests if any get broken out
> as separate buildfarm steps).

FWIW, on Windows any module with NO_INSTALLCHECK does not get tested
as we rely mostly on an installed server to do all the tests and avoid
the performance impact of setting up a new server for each module's
test.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: weird interaction between asynchronous queries and pg_sleep