Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv0Nn-0005bH-1n for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:05:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv0Nl-0005nc-MV for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:05:29 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv0Nl-0005nT-FJ for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:05:29 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv0Nj-0006es-4w for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:05:28 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 1B8H5Ok33660798; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 12:05:24 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andrew Dunstan cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Check that we have a working tar before trying to use it In-reply-to: References: <3655283.1638977975@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2e118a11-6936-21ec-6782-e9dbb20972c2@dunslane.net> <3657697.1638980149@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Wed, 08 Dec 2021 11:53:47 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3660796.1638983124.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:05:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3660797.1638983124@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Andrew Dunstan writes: > Actually, I think it makes more sense to simply revert this. bowerbird, > like all buildfarm animals, has a working tar. Right, it doesn't seem like tar is the biggest lift when setting up a buildfarm critter. > It's just that this one > is apparently seriously confused by using paths with a drive spec. Hm, so how would this test have handled that anyway? regards, tom lane