Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check
Date
Msg-id f4ee2bce-3582-06ca-9e77-c67bb1b66fea@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 04/25/2017 11:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I'm in the process of moving all the buildfarm tests to use check
>> instead of installcheck, but in such a way that it doesn't constantly
>> generate redundant installs.
> But is that something only of interest to the buildfarm, or should we
> do something in the Makefile infrastructure to make it more generally
> available?


It already is. If you have a temp_install with all the required pieces
do "make NO_TEMP_INSTALL=1 check"

The logic I am adding to the buildfarm is essentially to install contrib
and test_modules in the temp install directory as part of their install
steps and to check that that's been done before using NO_TEMP_INSTALL.

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtrans links incorrectly
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table