| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird test mixup |
| Date: | 2024-03-14 22:44:54 |
| Message-ID: | 2390106.1710456294@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Do they? It'd be fairly easy to explain this if these things were
>> being run in "installcheck" style. I'm not sure about CI, but from
>> memory, the buildfarm does use installcheck for some things.
> Right, as mentioned here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGJYhcG_o2nwSK6r01eOZJwNWUJUbX%3D%3DAVnW84f-%2B8yamQ%40mail.gmail.com
> That's the "running" test, which is like the old installcheck.
Hmm. Seems like maybe we need to institute a rule that anything
using injection points has to be marked NO_INSTALLCHECK. That's
kind of a big hammer though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-03-14 22:53:57 | Re: Weird test mixup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-14 22:30:39 | Re: Weird test mixup |