From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing |
Date: | 2011-09-03 15:12:11 |
Message-ID: | 201109031512.p83FCCH22069@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> But if you think about it, it doesn't really test pg_upgrade, it tests
> pg_dump. So the test could just as well be moved to src/bin/pg_dump/
> and be labeled "pg_dump smoke test" or whatever. (Minor detail: The bug
> fix above involved the --binary-upgrade flag, so it is somewhat
> pg_upgrade related.)
>
> A real pg_upgrade test suite should naturally upgrade across binary
> incompatible versions. The real question is how you develop a useful
> test input. Most pg_upgrade issues are not bugs of omission or
> regression but unexpected corner cases discovered with databases of
> nontrivial usage patterns. (The recent one related to upgrade from 8.3
> is an exception.) Because the basic premise of pg_upgrade is, dump and
> restore the schema, move over the files, that's it, and the rest of the
> code is workarounds for obscure details that are difficult to anticipate
> let alone test for.
You might want to read my blog entry on why pg_upgrade relies so much on
external tools:
http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2011.html#June_15_2011_2
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ktm@rice.edu | 2011-09-03 18:59:39 | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-09-03 14:39:15 | Re: pgsql: Remove "fmgr.h" include in cube contrib --- caused crash on a Ge |