Re: PG_TEST_EXTRA and meson

From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tristan Partin <tristan(at)partin(dot)io>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG_TEST_EXTRA and meson
Date: 2024-07-17 10:34:26
Message-ID: CAN55FZ2sJ4r2qtbs1xxRTrdx2sYCfVKj3=1wR7W1VQQVJADFFg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:23, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:13, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > xid_wraparound tests are run if PG_TEST_EXTRA contains xid_wraparound
> > or it is not set. Any other setting will not run xid_wraparound test.
> > That's how the patch is coded but it isn't intuitive that changing
> > whether a test is run by default would require configuring the build
> > again. Probably we should just get rid of config time PG_TEST_EXTRA
> > altogether.
> >
> > I am including +Tristan Partin who knows meson better.
> >
> > If you are willing to work on this further, please add it to the commitfest.
>
> I think I know why there is confusion. Could you try to set
> PG_TEST_EXTRA with quotes? Like PG_TEST_EXTRA="ldap mts
> xid_wraparound".

Sorry, the previous reply was wrong; I misunderstood what you said.
Yes, that is how the patch was coded and I agree that getting rid of
config time PG_TEST_EXTRA could be a better alternative.

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2024-07-17 11:43:13 Re: RFC: pg_stat_logmsg
Previous Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2024-07-17 10:23:19 Re: PG_TEST_EXTRA and meson