Thread: Re: [HACKERS] regression tests
> > I took Peter Eisentraut's advice and did it with the old pslq > > (thanks for the hint). > > > > This problem (as expected) remains and happens in the temp > > test. The two notices occur on creating the temp table and > > the index on it. After that, the database connection get's > > lost on the attempt to drop the temp table. > > > > Since the postmaster is doing recovery then, the numeric test > > hasn't been run. All other tests are still O.K. > > > > The question is, who did something that could cause this > > error? > > I am sure it was me changing the temp behavior. I will look at it. Jan, I can't reproduce the temp regression failure here. I did make changes yesterday morning to this. I assume you have an updated cvs, right? Anyway to make the default numeric regression test run faster. It seems to take quite a while compared to the others. We certainly need someone to update the regression tests to match the new format so people can continue running regression tests before applying patches. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> We certainly need someone to update the regression tests to match the
> new format so people can continue running regression tests before
> applying patches.
I've been using old psql (per Peter's suggestion) to run regression
tests. I have not pulled CVS since Saturday but things seemed OK then.
If there is a breakage, it's recent.
I thought we were putting off committing a new set of regress test
expected outputs until the dust settles in the new psql. Isn't Peter
still tweaking the output format? Not much point in generating new
expected files until everyone agrees the format is frozen.
Of course there's a bit of a catch-22 situation here: since I am not
using the new psql, I'm not contributing any feedback on it. The same
is probably true of some other developers... when we do finally adopt
new psql (after regress test update) there may be a bunch of belated
requests for changes...
regards, tom lane
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > We certainly need someone to update the regression tests to match the > > new format so people can continue running regression tests before > > applying patches. > > I've been using old psql (per Peter's suggestion) to run regression > tests. I have not pulled CVS since Saturday but things seemed OK then. > If there is a breakage, it's recent. > > I thought we were putting off committing a new set of regress test > expected outputs until the dust settles in the new psql. Isn't Peter > still tweaking the output format? Not much point in generating new > expected files until everyone agrees the format is frozen. > > Of course there's a bit of a catch-22 situation here: since I am not > using the new psql, I'm not contributing any feedback on it. The same > is probably true of some other developers... when we do finally adopt > new psql (after regress test update) there may be a bunch of belated > requests for changes... Yes, I am waiting to see if anyone changes the format before updating all the queries in my book. Is everyone OK with the new format? Do you like it more or less than the old one? Please someone weight in on one side or the other so we can conclude this. People have been very quiet on this issue. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026