Re: [patch] Adding EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS to all pg_regress invocations
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [patch] Adding EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS to all pg_regress invocations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20131210030835.GF2119@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [patch] Adding EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS to all pg_regress invocations (Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [patch] Adding EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS to all pg_regress invocations
Re: [patch] Adding EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS to all pg_regress invocations |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 09:52:27AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > The change is sane in itself. It won't affect anyone who doesn't use > > EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS. Why would we want to make packagers do MORE > > work? > > The patch has been in the Debian/Ubuntu/apt.pg.o packages for some > time, for 8.3+. I'm attaching the patches used there. > > (Sidenote: To enable building of several package flavors in parallel > on the same machine we use > > make -C build check-world EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS='--host=/tmp --port=$(shell perl -le 'print 1024 + int(rand(64000))')' > > so pg_regress' static per-version ports do not conflict. But 9.2's > contrib/pg_upgrade/{Makefile/test.sh} do not like --port in there, so > the 9.2 patch has an extra sed hack in there to remove --port for > pg_upgrade. That bit should probably not be applied for general use. > The rest is safe, though.) OK, Christoph has provided a full set of tested patches back to 8.4. Should I backpatch these? Peter says no, but two others say yes. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: