From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing |
Date: | 2011-09-02 23:49:12 |
Message-ID: | 15239.1315007352@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 09/02/2011 06:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> It won't work, unless you have a solution for fixing the paths of the
>> shared library modules used by the regression tests.
> Well, we could drop those functions and not run tests that require them.
> Or we could possibly install the libraries in $libdir and hack pg_proc
> accordingly. We'd have to install them on both the source and
> destination branches, of course.
The only one that's problematic is pg_regress.so; contrib modules are
already installed in $libdir. I still think that installing
pg_regress.so in $libdir may be the most reasonable solution, assuming
that the delta involved isn't too great. Yeah, we would have to
back-patch the changes into every release branch we want to test
upgrading from, but how risky is that really? The *only* thing it
affects is the regression tests.
Maybe I should produce a draft patch for moving pg_regress.so that way,
and we could see how big a delta it really is.
> Maybe we need to develop a test db specifically for pg_upgrade anyway.
Possibly, but it'll always be more impoverished than the regular
regression test DBs IMO.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-09-03 00:20:19 | Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-09-02 23:42:41 | Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing |