Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two
Date: 2018-03-06 21:12:44
Message-ID: 18045.1520370764@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 3/4/18 16:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> If you want to do this soon I can put out a Buildfarm Client release
>> fairly quickly.

> I think the dependency is mostly the other way around. How quickly
> would build farm owners install the upgrade?

IIUC, the buildfarm script patch is only needed to avoid duplicate
tests. So owners need only install it if they want to reduce wasted
cycles on their machines. That being the case, it's only urgent to
the extent that the individual owner perceives it to be. Some might
think it is so, so I'd like to see the BF release available before
we push the TAP test ... but we don't have to wait very long between.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-03-06 21:15:59 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-06 21:08:42 Re: [HACKERS] Support for Secure Transport SSL library on macOS as OpenSSL alternative