Re: alternate regression dbs?

Tom Lane wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>Currently the pg_regress script does "dbname=regression" and then does
>>everything in terms of $dbname. Would there be any value in providing a
>>--dbname=foo parameter so that different regression sets could use their
>>own db? One virtue at least might be that we would not drop the core
>>regression db all the time - having it around can be useful, I think.
>>
>>
>
>I'd be in favor of using three such DBs, one for core, PLs, and contrib.
>(More than that seems like it would clutter the disk a lot.) But I do
>use the standard regression DB as a handy testbed for a lot of stuff,
>and it has bothered me in the past that the contrib installcheck wipes
>it out.
>
>

I agree completely, will work on that.

>Another point in the same general area: it would probably not be hard to
>support "make check" as well as "make installcheck" for the PLs. (The
>reason it's hard for contrib is that "make install" doesn't install
>contrib ... but it does install the PLs.) Is it worth doing it though?
>The easy implementation would require building a temp install tree for
>each PL, which seems mighty slow and disk-space-hungry.
>
>
>
>

yes, way too much work if done as a separate run. The only way it would
make sense to me would be if we integrated them into the core check run
somehow. But I very much doubt it is worth it.

cheers

andrew