Re: [PATCH] Honor PG_TEST_NOCLEAN for tempdirs

From: Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Honor PG_TEST_NOCLEAN for tempdirs
Date: 2023-06-29 16:05:59
Message-ID: CAAWbhmhb1RET_KGnrVMrg2AgscOCNZeYPgDdRJ7VXx4gw6bNxw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 5:41 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Agreed. I am not sure that this is worth changing to have
> boolean-like checks. Hence, I would also to keep the patch that
> checks if the environment variable is defined to enforce the behavior,
> without checking for a specific value.

Sounds good -- 0002 can be ignored as needed, then. (Or I can resend a
v3 for CI purposes, if you'd like.)

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2023-06-29 16:09:46 Re: pg_decode_message vs skip_empty_xacts and xact_wrote_changes
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-06-29 15:39:48 Re: ReadRecentBuffer() doesn't scale well