Horton

Thread

  1. Support "make check" for PGXS extensions

    Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> — 2025-03-20T13:06:20Z

    This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch.  With 
this little additional patch, you can now run "make check" in PGXS-using 
extensions (instead of having to do make install; make installcheck with 
a running instance).  I think this would be very convenient for 
extension development.

The patch is still rough, probably needs a bit of work to do proper 
escaping, quoting, further testing, and it will probably break if you 
use a different source tree layout.  Maybe with a bit of help we can get 
this robust enough.  Or otherwise, it can at least serve as inspiration 
for what you can implement yourself in your extension's makefile.

  2. Re: Support "make check" for PGXS extensions

    David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> — 2025-03-20T17:20:30Z

    On Mar 20, 2025, at 09:06, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> 
> This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch.  With this little additional patch, you can now run "make check" in PGXS-using extensions (instead of having to do make install; make installcheck with a running instance).  I think this would be very convenient for extension development.

I LOVE this idea! But one thing to keep in mind is that not all files are in CURDIR. Might make sense to use `dirname` on all the entires in DATA and MODULES to figure out what to put in the search paths. I usually have my C files in `src` and SQL files in `sql`, and wrote the PGXN tutorial[1] back in 2012 with that pattern (for better or worse). A simple example is the envvar extension[2]:

DATA         = $(wildcard sql/*.sql)
MODULES      = $(patsubst %.c,%,$(wildcard src/*.c))

Best,

David

[1]: https://manager.pgxn.org/howto#neworder
[2]: https://github.com/theory/pg-envvar/blob/main/Makefile

  3. Re: Support "make check" for PGXS extensions

    Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2025-03-20T17:57:23Z

    On 3/20/25 13:20, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2025, at 09:06, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> >> This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch.
>> With this little additional patch, you can now run "make check" in
>> PGXS-using extensions (instead of having to do make install; make
>> installcheck with a running instance).  I think this would be very
>> convenient for extension development.

> I LOVE this idea!


+many

-- 
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

  4. Re: Support "make check" for PGXS extensions

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2025-03-20T21:31:49Z

    On 2025-03-20 Th 9:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch.  With 
> this little additional patch, you can now run "make check" in 
> PGXS-using extensions (instead of having to do make install; make 
> installcheck with a running instance).  I think this would be very 
> convenient for extension development.
>
> The patch is still rough, probably needs a bit of work to do proper 
> escaping, quoting, further testing, and it will probably break if you 
> use a different source tree layout.  Maybe with a bit of help we can 
> get this robust enough.  Or otherwise, it can at least serve as 
> inspiration for what you can implement yourself in your extension's 
> makefile.


No support for TAP tests, AFAICT. I guess this is a first step, but TAP 
support would be nice.


cheers


andrew



--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

  5. Re: Support "make check" for PGXS extensions

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2025-03-20T23:55:34Z

    On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 1:57 PM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> > I LOVE this idea!
> +many

Same here. But I also agree with Andrew that it would be fantastic if
TAP tests could be made to work, too. Yet, anything beats nothing!

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  6. Re: Support "make check" for PGXS extensions

    Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> — 2025-03-27T16:21:47Z

    On 20.03.25 18:20, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2025, at 09:06, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is a quick follow-up to the extension_control_path patch.  With this little additional patch, you can now run "make check" in PGXS-using extensions (instead of having to do make install; make installcheck with a running instance).  I think this would be very convenient for extension development.
> 
> I LOVE this idea! But one thing to keep in mind is that not all files are in CURDIR. Might make sense to use `dirname` on all the entires in DATA and MODULES to figure out what to put in the search paths. I usually have my C files in `src` and SQL files in `sql`, and wrote the PGXN tutorial[1] back in 2012 with that pattern (for better or worse). A simple example is the envvar extension[2]:
> 
> DATA         = $(wildcard sql/*.sql)
> MODULES      = $(patsubst %.c,%,$(wildcard src/*.c))

Interesting.  I think to support that, we would need to do a temp 
install kind of thing of the extension, and then point the path settings 
into that temp install directory.  Which is probably more sensible anyway.

  7. Re: Support "make check" for PGXS extensions

    David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> — 2025-03-27T17:23:02Z

    On Mar 27, 2025, at 12:21, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:

> Interesting.  I think to support that, we would need to do a temp install kind of thing of the extension, and then point the path settings into that temp install directory.  Which is probably more sensible anyway.

If it runs against a temporary cluster anyway, I think that makes perfect sense.

D