On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 07:19:04AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I was thinking of the same. +1 for "vcregress check-world" which is
> more in sync with it's peer "make check-world" instead of "vcregress
> all-taptest". I'm not sure whether we can also have "vcregress
> installcheck-world" as well.
check-world, if it spins new instances for each contrib/ test, would
be infinitely slower than installcheck-world. I recall that's why
Andrew has been doing an installcheck for contribcheck to minimize the
load. If you run the TAP tests, perhaps you don't really care anyway,
but I think that there is a case for making this set of targets run as
fast as we can, if we can, when TAP is disabled.
> Having said that, with these new options, are we going to have only below?
>
> vcregress check
> vcregress installcheck
> vcregress check-world
> vcregress installcheck-world (?)
>
> And remove others?
My take is that there is value for both installcheck-world and
check-world, depending on if we want to test on an installed instance
or not. For CIs, check-world makes things simpler perhaps?
> vcregress plcheck
> vcregress contribcheck
> vcregress modulescheck
> vcregress ecpgcheck
> vcregress isolationcheck
> vcregress bincheck
> vcregress recoverycheck
> vcregress upgradecheck
I don't really see why we should do that, the code paths are the same
and the sub-routines would still be around, but don't cost much in
maintenance.
--
Michael
