Re: [patch] Adding EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS to all pg_regress invocations
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [patch] Adding EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS to all pg_regress invocations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqQyH062MXC4_Cx1tRd9_FJhNKM5wxHyp=+B07GuapY0XA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [patch] Adding EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS to all pg_regress invocations (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > 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. My 2c. Adding a new feature in a maintenance branch is usually not done, so I'd vote no. Regards, -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: