Re: Fixes required for cross version update testing

On 2023-01-13 Fr 19:33, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 05:20:41PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Over at [1] there was some discussion of moving knowledge of what's
>> required to be fixed from old branch repos to be able to upgrade them
>> into the core code, instead of having it reside in a buildfarm client
>> module.
> Is this instead of the idea for the buildfarm to use the same SQL script
> as the TAP test (upgrade_adapt.sql) ?
>
> Discussed various places:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1575064(dot)1615060903(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
>
> https://github.com/PGBuildFarm/client-code/pull/23
>
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=0df9641d39057f431655b92b8a490b89c508a0b3
> | The long-term plan is to make the buildfarm code re-use this new SQL
> | file, so as committers are able to fix any compatibility issues in the
> | tests of pg_upgrade with a refresh of the core code, without having to
> | poke at the buildfarm client. Note that this is only able to handle the
> | main regression test suite, and that nothing is done yet for contrib
> | modules yet (these have more issues like their database names).
>
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=9814ff550046f825b751803191b29a2fbbc79283
>

I didn't adopt the PR precisely because it didn't do enough, unlike the
module I posted, which supports upgrades all the way from 9.2 forward,
and for more databases than just regression.

I frankly think this is a better approach.

cheers

andrew

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