Re: horology regression test failure

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Martin Pitt <martin(at)piware(dot)de>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: horology regression test failure
Date: 2005-12-22 10:32:58
Message-ID: 200512221132.58794.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> It's not all that uninteresting, because "make check" is essentially an
> instance of exercising the relocatability feature.

That just means that the test suite is testing features that are not of
interest to certain groups of users; it doesn't declare a feature
intesting.

(Certainly the test suite failure should be fixed, but I don't consider
making arbitary installations relocatable as necessary or restricting
arbitrary installations as acceptable.)

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexis Cedeo Trujillo 2005-12-22 13:02:57 BUG #2121: Problem with backup and query
Previous Message Martin Pitt 2005-12-22 07:25:39 Re: horology regression test failure

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-12-22 10:41:33 Re: Unsplitting btree index leaf pages
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-12-22 10:18:22 Re: Function call with offset and limit