From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] plperl and pltcl installcheck targets |
Date: | 2005-05-14 21:14:14 |
Message-ID: | 42866A26.3040503@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>I agree. That will also mean that buildfarm members will automatically
>>start doing the checks (as long as they are set up to build the PLs), so
>>it would be an extra bonus for me :-)
>>
>>
>
>The only argument I can think of against it is that the buildfarm
>status page will then not distinguish core system check failures
>from PL check failures. If that doesn't bother you, we can make
>it so.
>
>
>
>
That's probably a good point. I was just being a little too lazy.
Building an extra check step in is not very difficult - it will just
take a little while for all the buildfarm emebers to catch up. But since
we're still 6 weeks even from feature freeze that shouldn't matter too
much. I'll get onto it.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-05-14 21:48:09 | alternate regression dbs? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-14 19:46:19 | Re: [HACKERS] plperl and pltcl installcheck targets |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-14 21:57:52 | Re: Exec statement logging |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-14 20:55:01 | Re: Exec statement logging |