| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New regression test time |
| Date: | 2013-07-01 14:36:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20130701143637.GA418@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-07-01 07:14:23 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > If we had a different set of tests, that would be a valid argument. But
> > we don't, so it's not. And nobody has offered to write a feature to
> > split our tests either.
> With utmost respect, this just isn't true. There is a "make coverage"
> target that probably doesn't get enough exercise, but it's just the
> kind of infrastructure you're describing.
Uh? Isn't make coverage a target for collecting the generated coverage
data? Afaik it itself does *NOT* depend on any checks being run. And it
only does something sensible if --enable-coverage is passed to
./configure anyway.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-07-01 14:52:55 | Re: Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views |
| Previous Message | Samrat Revagade | 2013-07-01 14:28:19 | Re: [PATCH] big test separation POC |