| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: tests for client programs |
| Date: | 2014-02-23 00:50:53 |
| Message-ID: | 530945ED.2020800@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/9/14, 1:01 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > b) Prepared tests fails when PostgreSQL server was up - should be
> > checked and should to raise a valuable error message
>
> The original patch used a hard-coded port number, which was a mistake.
> I have changed this now to use a nonstandard port number that is
> different from the compiled-in one, similar to how pg_regress used to do
> it. It's still not bullet-proof. Do we need to do more?
>
>
> you can check before starting test if some Postgres on this port is
> living or not. We have pg_isready.
I'm having trouble reproducing this scenario. The tests use a
Unix-domain socket in a private directory, so I don't see how that can
conflict. Can you show me exactly how you invoked the tests and which
tests and which tests failed? And what platform are you on?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-02-23 00:53:22 | Re: Review: tests for client programs |
| Previous Message | Rukh Meski | 2014-02-23 00:02:36 | Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT .. |