Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 3:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
> > Committed that, thanks.
>
> Buildfarm member snakefly doesn't like this too much.  Since no other
> animals have failed, I guess it must be about local conditions on
> that machine, but the report is pretty opaque:
>
> # +++ tap check in src/test/modules/test_extensions +++
>
> #   Failed test '$system extension is installed correctly on pg_available_extensions'
> #   at t/001_extension_control_path.pl line 69.
> #          got: 'f'
> #     expected: 't'
>
> #   Failed test '$system extension is installed correctly on pg_available_extensions with empty extension_control_path'
> #   at t/001_extension_control_path.pl line 76.
> #          got: 'f'
> #     expected: 't'
> # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 5.
> [06:43:53] t/001_extension_control_path.pl ..
> Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
> Failed 2/5 subtests
>
> Looking at the test, it presupposes that "amcheck" must be an
> available extension.  I do not see anything that guarantees
> that that's so, though.  It'd fail if contrib hasn't been
> installed.  Is there a reason to use "amcheck" rather than
> something more certainly available, like "plpgsql"?

There is no specific reason to use "amcheck" instead of "plpgsql". Attached a
patch with this change, sorry about that.

(Not sure if we should also improve the message to make the test failure less
opaque?)

-- 
Matheus Alcantara