Thread: Add extension options to control TAP and isolation tests
Hi all, On a recent thread of pgsql-committers has been discussed the fact that we lacked a bit of infrastructure to allow extensions to control isolation and TAP tests: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180905174527.GA2726@paquier.xyz Attached is a patch which is the result of the previous thread, where a couple of variables are added for extension authors: - ISOLATION, similar to REGRESS for pg_regress, which lists isolation tests. - ISOLATION_OPTS, which can be used to pass an option set to pg_isolation_regress. - TAP_TESTS, a switch to enable running TAP tests. This results in a bit of cleanup in the Makefile of modules we ship with upstream: - modules/brin - modules/commit_ts - modules/test_pg_dump - contrib/bloom, where the TAP tests were actually not running. - contrib/oid2name - contrib/test_decoding, which keeps the same feature set, and is heavily cleaned up (it missed for example the use of the existing NO_INSTALLCHECK). - contrib/vacuumlo Thoughts? -- Michael
Attachment
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 06:48:49PM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote: > On a recent thread of pgsql-committers has been discussed the fact that > we lacked a bit of infrastructure to allow extensions to control > isolation and TAP tests: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180905174527.GA2726@paquier.xyz > > Attached is a patch which is the result of the previous thread, where a > couple of variables are added for extension authors: > - ISOLATION, similar to REGRESS for pg_regress, which lists isolation > tests. > - ISOLATION_OPTS, which can be used to pass an option set to > pg_isolation_regress. > - TAP_TESTS, a switch to enable running TAP tests. Tom, Alvaro, any thoughts on the proposed patch? Please note that one thing which is missing, and that I left on purpose so as the buildfarm client does not need any extra tweaks, is support for those options in src/tools/msvc. It is already possible to run easily any TAP test suite using vcregress taptest $dir, and test_decoding has some special handling in the buildfarm code to run isolation tests. It seems to me that the amount of cleanup done by the initial patch in all the Makefiles justifies its existence, and I could always follow-up with a second patch for MSVC if needed. -- Michael
Attachment
Nice cleanup. Also, I like the ability to enable/control more types of tests easily from the Makefile. What are the nextsteps for this patch?
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 03:14:00PM +0000, Adam Berlin wrote: > Nice cleanup. Also, I like the ability to enable/control more types of > tests easily from the Makefile. What are the next steps for this > patch? Thanks. It seems to me that a complete review is still in order, particularly regarding the new makefile option names. And then, if everybody caring about the topic is happy with the way the patch is shaped, it can be carried over to being committed, which would be most likely something I'll do. -- Michael
Attachment
В письме от 10 ноября 2018 09:14:19 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > > Nice cleanup. Also, I like the ability to enable/control more types of > > tests easily from the Makefile. What are the next steps for this > > patch? > > Thanks. It seems to me that a complete review is still in order, > particularly regarding the new makefile option names. And then, if > everybody caring about the topic is happy with the way the patch is > shaped, it can be carried over to being committed, which would be most > likely something I'll do. Is it ok, if I join the reviewing? I like test, especially TAP one, you know ;-) Since you are much more experienced in postgres then me, I'd try to understand how does the patch work, try to use if for writing more TAP test, and will report problems and thoughts I came across while doing that. So far while first reading the patch I came to following two 1. --- a/src/test/modules/brin/.gitignore +++ b/src/test/modules/brin/.gitignore @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ # Generated subdirectories -/isolation_output/ +/output_iso/ /tmp_check/ For me name "output_iso" means nothing. iso is something about CD/DVD or about standards. I would not guess that iso stands for isolation if I did not know it already. isolation_output is more sensible: I have heard that there are some isolation tests, this must be something about it. May be it would be better to change it to isolation_output everywhere instead of changing to output_iso 2. --- a/doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml @@ -1293,6 +1293,34 @@ include $(PGXS) </listitem> </varlistentry> . + <varlistentry> + <term><varname>ISOLATION</varname></term> + <listitem> + <para> + list of isolation test cases + </para> + </listitem> + </varlistentry> + + <varlistentry> + <term><varname>ISOLATION_OPTS</varname></term> + <listitem> + <para> + additional switches to pass to + <application>pg_isolation_regress</application> + </para> + </listitem> + </varlistentry> + + <varlistentry> + <term><varname>TAP_TESTS</varname></term> + <listitem> + <para> + switch defining if TAP tests need to be run + </para> + </listitem> + </varlistentry> + <varlistentry> <term><varname>NO_INSTALLCHECK</varname></term> <listitem> I tried to find definition in documentation what does "isolation test" exactly means, but did not find. There is some general words about TAP tests in main postgres documentation https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/regress-tap.html, but I would not understand anything from it if I did not already know how it works. In current extend-pgxs documentation there is some explanation about regression test, it sensible enough. Since TAP and isolation tests are introduced now, there should be same short explanation for both of them. And also it would be good to add links from extend-pgxs to regress-tap and regress saying that for more info about these tests one can look at postgres doc, because they work in a similar way. That's all so far. I'll look more into it later... -- Do code for fun.
Attachment
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:30:39PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > Is it ok, if I join the reviewing? I like test, especially TAP one, you know > ;-) > > Since you are much more experienced in postgres then me, I'd try to > understand how does the patch work, try to use if for writing more TAP > test, and will report problems and thoughts I came across while doing that. Thanks for bumping in the field. > For me name "output_iso" means nothing. iso is something about CD/DVD or about > standards. I would not guess that iso stands for isolation if I did not know > it already. isolation_output is more sensible: I have heard that there are > some isolation tests, this must be something about it. May be it would be > better to change it to isolation_output everywhere instead of changing to > output_iso That's just a default configuration used by the isolation tester. That's not much bothering with in my opinion for this patch, as the patch is here to make sure that the default configuration gets used where it had better be used. Changing this default value would be of course doable technically, but that's around for years to changing it does not seem like good idea. > I tried to find definition in documentation what does "isolation test" exactly > means, but did not find. There is some general words about TAP tests in main > postgres documentation > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/regress-tap.html, > but I would not understand anything from it if I did not already know how it > works. Those are mentioned here as part of the additional test suites: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/regress-run.html#id-1.6.20.5.5 > In current extend-pgxs documentation there is some explanation about > regression test, it sensible enough. Since TAP and isolation tests are > introduced now, there should be same short explanation for both of > them. I see your point here, and it is true that documentation ought to be better. So I have written out a new set of paragraphs which explain the whereabouts of the new variables a bit more in depth in the section of extend-pgxs. > And also it would be good to add links from extend-pgxs to regress-tap and > regress saying that for more info about these tests one can look at postgres > doc, because they work in a similar way. I have added a reference to regress-tap in one of the new paragraphs. Linking the existing stuff to point to "regress" is a separate issue though, and while pointing to the TAP section is adapted as its guidelines are rather general, I am not sure which one would make the most sense though. -- Michael
Attachment
В письме от 21 ноября 2018 09:39:53 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > > For me name "output_iso" means nothing. iso is something about CD/DVD or > > about standards. I would not guess that iso stands for isolation if I did > > not know it already. isolation_output is more sensible: I have heard that > > there are some isolation tests, this must be something about it. May be > > it would be better to change it to isolation_output everywhere instead of > > changing to output_iso > That's just a default configuration used by the isolation tester. > That's not much bothering with in my opinion for this patch, as the > patch is here to make sure that the default configuration gets used > where it had better be used. Changing this default value would be of > course doable technically, but that's around for years to changing it > does not seem like good idea. Ok. If it is long time tradition, let it be :-) > > I tried to find definition in documentation what does "isolation test" > > exactly means, but did not find. There is some general words about TAP > > tests in main postgres documentation > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/regress-tap.html, > > but I would not understand anything from it if I did not already know how > > it works. > > Those are mentioned here as part of the additional test suites: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/regress-run.html#id-1.6.20.5.5 Oh thanks (I feel urge to start editing documentation right now. I will surpress it, and do it, I hope, later.) May I also ask a question, I came across. It is not part of the patch, but nevertheless... If I look in the code, regression test are sql files with expected output that are in src/test/regress. If I look in the documentation, all the tests are regression tests including TAP tests. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/regress.html what is the right way to look at it? > > In current extend-pgxs documentation there is some explanation about > > regression test, it sensible enough. Since TAP and isolation tests are > > introduced now, there should be same short explanation for both of > > them. > > I see your point here, and it is true that documentation ought to be > better. So I have written out a new set of paragraphs which explain the > whereabouts of the new variables a bit more in depth in the section of > extend-pgxs. Oh thanks! Now it is much more clear. So, I continued exploring your patch. First I carefully read changes in pgxs.mk. The only part of it I did not understand is .PHONY: submake -submake: ifndef PGXS +submake: +ifdef REGRESS $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/regress pg_regress$(X) endif +ifdef ISOLATION + $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/isolation all +endif +endif # PGXS I suppose it is because the purpose of PGXS is never explained, not in the documentation, not in the code comments, and PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) -- pgxs) sounds like some strange magic spell, that explains nothing. In what cases it is defined? In what cases it is not defined? What exactly does it store? Can we make things more easy to understand here? 2. As far as you said that TAP tests for bloom were never executed, I guess I should just ignore - -wal-check: temp-install - (prove_check) as a part of wrong way to execute TAP tests. (I fond no traces of "wal-check" string in the code, so I guess this build target is an invention of bloom authors) 3. The rest are trivial, except changes for contrib/test_decoding/ and src/test/modules/brin I will explore them in my next postgres-dev time slot and then my review work will be done :-) -- Do code for fun.
Attachment
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:01:26PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > В письме от 21 ноября 2018 09:39:53 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: >> Those are mentioned here as part of the additional test suites: >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/regress-run.html#id-1.6.20.5.5 > > Oh thanks (I feel urge to start editing documentation right now. I will > surpress it, and do it, I hope, later.) If you have a patch to improve the existing docs, please feel free to submit those on a different thread. If you have suggestions about improving this patch's docs, of course please feel free to suggest them here! > May I also ask a question, I came across. It is not part of the patch, but > nevertheless... > If I look in the code, regression test are sql files with expected output that > are in src/test/regress. If I look in the documentation, all the tests are > regression tests including TAP tests. > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/regress.html > > what is the right way to look at it? That's for the main regression test suite within src/test/regress, TAP is also a regression test suite, the page of the link reflects the general set of test suites available. > So, I continued exploring your patch. First I carefully read changes in > pgxs.mk. The only part of it I did not understand is > > .PHONY: submake > -submake: > ifndef PGXS > +submake: > +ifdef REGRESS > $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/regress pg_regress$(X) > endif > +ifdef ISOLATION > + $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/isolation all > +endif > +endif # PGXS This is to make sure that the necessary tools are compiled before running the related tests. "submake:" needs to be moved out actually. Thinking about it a bit more, we should also remove the "ifdef REGRESS" and "ifdef ISOLATION" because there are some dependencies here. For example TAP tests call pg_regress to initialize connection policy. TAP tests may also use isolation_tester or such. > I suppose it is because the purpose of PGXS is never explained, not in the > documentation, not in the code comments, and PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) -- > pgxs) sounds like some strange magic spell, that explains nothing. In what > cases it is defined? In what cases it is not defined? What exactly does it > store? Can we make things more easy to understand here? That's part of a larger scope which is here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/extend-pgxs.html > 2. As far as you said that TAP tests for bloom were never executed, > I guess I should just ignore > > - > -wal-check: temp-install > - (prove_check) > > as a part of wrong way to execute TAP tests. (I fond no traces of "wal-check" > string in the code, so I guess this build target is an invention of bloom > authors) Yes. It seems that it was useful for debugging at this time, but this will rot if let as-is... I am pretty sure that most people don't use that wrapper. > 3. The rest are trivial, except changes for contrib/test_decoding/ and > src/test/modules/brin I will explore them in my next postgres-dev time slot > and then my review work will be done :-) Thanks for the input, Nikolay! -- Michael
Attachment
Hello, On 21.11.2018 03:39, Michael Paquier wrote: > I have added a reference to regress-tap in one of the new paragraphs. > Linking the existing stuff to point to "regress" is a separate issue > though, and while pointing to the TAP section is adapted as its > guidelines are rather general, I am not sure which one would make the > most sense though. > -- > Michael The patch is very useful. Using TAP_TESTS is more convenient and clearer than adding wal-check target. Every time I was adding TAP tests for a extension I had to remember that I should add wal-check. After applying the patch all tests pass, there wasn't any error. Also I tested it in one of our extension which has TAP tests. installcheck and check work as expected. I think the patch can be marked as "Ready for Committer". But there is a problem that you need to copy your extension to the contrib directory if you want to run TAP tests. I tried to run TAP test of the extension outside of PostgreSQL source directory. And it failed to run the test. It is because `prove_installcheck` redefines `top_builddir` and `PG_REGRESS`: cd ./ && TESTDIR='/home/artur/source/pg/rum' PATH="/home/artur/progs/pgsql/bin:$PATH" PGPORT='65432' top_builddir='/home/artur/source/pg/rum//home/artur/progs/pgsql/lib/pgxs/src/makefiles/../..' PG_REGRESS='/home/artur/source/pg/rum//home/artur/progs/pgsql/lib/pgxs/src/makefiles/../../src/test/regress/pg_regress' /usr/sbin/prove -I /home/artur/progs/pgsql/lib/pgxs/src/makefiles/../../src/test/perl/ -I ./ t/*.pl t/001_wal.pl .. Bailout called. Further testing stopped: system /home/artur/source/pg/rum//home/artur/progs/pgsql/lib/pgxs/src/makefiles/../../src/test/regress/pg_regress failed Unfortunately I didn't find the way to run it, maybe I miss something. It can be fixed by an additional patch I attached. I think I can create an entry in the future commitfest or it can be joined into your patch. -- Arthur Zakirov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com Russian Postgres Company
Attachment
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 05:29:00PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > The patch is very useful. Using TAP_TESTS is more convenient and clearer > than adding wal-check target. Every time I was adding TAP tests for a > extension I had to remember that I should add wal-check. wal-check is a custom option part of contrib/bloom/ which is not aimed at spreading around. > After applying the patch all tests pass, there wasn't any error. > > Also I tested it in one of our extension which has TAP tests. installcheck > and check work as expected. Thanks. > But there is a problem that you need to copy your extension to the contrib > directory if you want to run TAP tests. I tried to run TAP test of the > extension outside of PostgreSQL source directory. And it failed to run the > test. It is because `prove_installcheck` redefines `top_builddir` and > `PG_REGRESS`: I have tested that as well with one of my custom extensions, which has some TAP tests, and the following Makefile additions: TAP_TESTS = 1 ifdef USE_PGXS PG_CONFIG = pg_config PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --pgxs) include $(PGXS) else subdir = contrib/EXTENSION_NAME_HERE top_builddir = ../.. include $(top_builddir)/src/Makefile.global include $(top_srcdir)/contrib/contrib-global.mk endif Running make clean at the root of the tree, then running make check from contrib/EXTENSION_NAME_HERE works for me. > Unfortunately I didn't find the way to run it, maybe I miss something. It > can be fixed by an additional patch I attached. I think I can create an > entry in the future commitfest or it can be joined into your patch. The previous version of the patch I sent make the build of src/test/regress dependent on if REGRESS is set, but I missed the fact that TAP tests also call pg_regress, which is the error you are seeing. The attached patch will be able to work. Thanks all for the reviews, I'll do a last lookup on Monday my time and I'll try to get that committed by then. That's a nice cleanup of the tree. -- Michael
Attachment
В письме от 23 ноября 2018 09:43:45 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > > So, I continued exploring your patch. First I carefully read changes in > > pgxs.mk. The only part of it I did not understand is > > > > .PHONY: submake > > > > -submake: > > ifndef PGXS > > > > +submake: > > +ifdef REGRESS > > > > $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/regress pg_regress$(X) > > > > endif > > > > +ifdef ISOLATION > > + $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/isolation all > > +endif > > +endif # PGXS > > This is to make sure that the necessary tools are compiled before > running the related tests. "submake:" needs to be moved out actually. > Thinking about it a bit more, we should also remove the "ifdef REGRESS" > and "ifdef ISOLATION" because there are some dependencies here. For > example TAP tests call pg_regress to initialize connection policy. TAP > tests may also use isolation_tester or such. Can you add some comments in this part of pgxs.mk that explains this thing about pre-building needed tools? This will make understanding it more easy... > > > I suppose it is because the purpose of PGXS is never explained, not in the > > documentation, not in the code comments, and PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) > > -- pgxs) sounds like some strange magic spell, that explains nothing. In > > what cases it is defined? In what cases it is not defined? What exactly > > does it store? Can we make things more easy to understand here? > > That's part of a larger scope which is here: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/extend-pgxs.html I've carefully read this documentation. And did not get clear explanation of what is the true purpose of PGXS environment variable. Only "The last three lines should always be the same. Earlier in the file, you assign variables or add custom make rules." May be it should bot be discussed in the doc, but it should be mentioned in pgxs.mk . I guess both PGXS nad NO_PGXS should be explicitly described, in order to make the rest of the code more readable. (As for me I now have some intuitive understanding of it's nature, but it would be better to have strict explanation) So about test_decoding contrib/test_decoding/Makefile: EXTRA_INSTALL=contrib/test_decoding This sounds a bit strange to me. Why in make file for <some_extantions> we should explicitly specify that this <some_extantions> is needed for tests. It is obviously needed! Man, we are testing it!! ;-) I would suspect that is should be added somewhere in pgxs.mk code, when it is needed. Or this is not as obvious and trivial as I see it? I guess it came from -submake-test_decoding: - $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/contrib/test_decoding but still there is no logic in it. +REGRESS_OPTS = --temp-config $(top_srcdir)/contrib/test_decoding/logical.conf +ISOLATION_OPTS = --temp-config $(top_srcdir)/contrib/test_decoding/logical.conf When I read these lines an idea about ISOLATION_CONF and REGRESS_CONF variables came into my mind. That are transformed into proper _OPTS in pgxs.mk ? Since there is only one use case, may be it do not worth it. So I just speak this thought aloud without any intention to make it reality. - $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/regress all is replaced with $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/regress pg_regress$(X) in pgxs.mk. I hope changing "all" to "pg_regress$(X)" is ok, because I do not understand it. I've also greped for "pg_isolation_regress_check" and found that it is also used in src/test/modules/snapshot_too_old that also uses PGXS (at least as an option) should not we include it in your patch too? So I think that is it. Since Artur said, he successfully used your TAP patch in other extensions, I will not do it, considering it is already checked. If you think it is good to recheck, I can do it too :-)
Attachment
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 05:49:42PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > I've carefully read this documentation. And did not get clear explanation of > what is the true purpose of PGXS environment variable. Only > > "The last three lines should always be the same. Earlier in the file, you > assign variables or add custom make rules." The definition of PGXS is here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/extend-pgxs.html > May be it should bot be discussed in the doc, but it should be mentioned in > pgxs.mk . I guess both PGXS nad NO_PGXS should be explicitly described, in > order to make the rest of the code more readable. (As for me I now have some > intuitive understanding of it's nature, but it would be better to have strict > explanation) I am not sure that documenting NO_PGXS makes much sense for extensions, which have normally no need of the surrounding code. If you have suggestions of improvements for the existing docs, please feel free to think about a patch and then post it. Docs improvements are a never-ending task. > When I read these lines an idea about ISOLATION_CONF and REGRESS_CONF > variables came into my mind. That are transformed into proper _OPTS in pgxs.mk > ? Since there is only one use case, may be it do not worth it. So I just speak > this thought aloud without any intention to make it reality. ISOLATION_OPTS and REGRESS_OPTS already allow to pass down custom options, and are more extensible than the _CONF variants proposed here. Keeping the number of options low is not a bad idea either. > I've also greped for "pg_isolation_regress_check" and found that it is also > used in src/test/modules/snapshot_too_old that also uses PGXS (at least as an > option) should not we include it in your patch too? Good point. This can be cleaned up too, so done. > So I think that is it. Since Artur said, he successfully used your TAP patch > in other extensions, I will not do it, considering it is already checked. If > you think it is good to recheck, I can do it too :-) Thanks, I have re-checked, and the thing is working as I would expect. So committed. -- Michael
Attachment
В письме от 26 ноября 2018 08:53:20 Вы написали: > > I've carefully read this documentation. And did not get clear explanation > > of what is the true purpose of PGXS environment variable. Only > > > > "The last three lines should always be the same. Earlier in the file, you > > assign variables or add custom make rules." > > The definition of PGXS is here: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/extend-pgxs.html Can you please provide the quotation? I see there PGXS mentioned several times as "a build infrastructure for extensions" and as an environment variable it is mentioned only in code sample PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --pgxs) include $(PGXS) So for me there is no explanation. Or it is hard to find (that is also bad) If we are done with your patch, can we still finish this line of discussion in order to create another small patch concerning PGXS-env-var comment?
Attachment
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:50:35AM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > I see there PGXS mentioned several times as "a build infrastructure > for extensions" and as an environment variable it is mentioned only in > code sample As a variable PGXS stands for the location of the makefile which holds all the basic rules an extension can use, as pointed for example by pg_config --pgxs when it comes to extensions compiled out of the tree. -- Michael
Attachment
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 09:43:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > That's for the main regression test suite within src/test/regress, TAP > is also a regression test suite, the page of the link reflects the > general set of test suites available. The main patch had to be reverted a couple of days ago via 1d7dd18, and I have been digging and fixing the set of issues the buildfarm has been complaining about since. There were two problems: - MSVC scripts were not able to handle modules with NO_INSTALLCHECK defined, and vcregress.pl runs with the assumption that installcheck is used. Support for that has been added in 431f159. Some modules have been also lacking NO_INSTALLCHECK. - contrib/bloom/ are unstable. I have not spent time investigating the actual root issue, but spawned a thread with the authors of the tests: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181126025125.GH1776@paquier.xyz I am attaching the patch I would like to commit to close this thread, which has as single change TAP_TESTS commented out in contrib/bloom/ to not explode the buildfarm. Any objections to that? -- Michael
Attachment
On 29.11.2018 05:00, Michael Paquier wrote: > The main patch had to be reverted a couple of days ago via 1d7dd18, and > I have been digging and fixing the set of issues the buildfarm has been > complaining about since. There were two problems: Thank you for working on the patch. I run world-check. It works perfectly. I think the patch is in good shape. > I am attaching the patch I would like to commit to close this thread, > which has as single change TAP_TESTS commented out in contrib/bloom/ to > not explode the buildfarm. Any objections to that? As far as I understand bloom TAP tests are stable on some platforms, such as linux. Can be TAP test disabled only for some specific platforms? For example (as far as I know 'darwin' refers to MacOS): ifeq (,$(filter win32 darwin,$(PORTNAME))) TAP_TESTS = 1 endif PS. But after rereading the Makefile I see that the problem here is to get $(PORTNAME). It is defined in Makefile.global, which is included below defining TAP_TESTS variable. -- Arthur Zakirov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com Russian Postgres Company
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:18:04PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > As far as I understand bloom TAP tests are stable on some platforms, such as > linux. Can be TAP test disabled only for some specific platforms? That can be done with PORTNAME. However I am doubting that those tests are even reliable on Linux.. So it would be much better to understand the root issue before enabling them. -- Michael
Attachment
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:00:11AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > I am attaching the patch I would like to commit to close this thread, > which has as single change TAP_TESTS commented out in contrib/bloom/ to > not explode the buildfarm. Any objections to that? And I gave this stuff another shot with d3c09b9. Fingers crossed. -- Michael