| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test |
| Date: | 2017-04-03 15:32:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20170403153200.jqntjo7zat6x5rhh@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-04-03 11:22:02 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/3/17 09:07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I had for some time a WIP patch on which dust has accumulated, so
> > attached is a more polished version. In more details, here is what
> > happens:
> > - test.sh is removed.
> > - vcregress.pl loses upgradecheck.
> > - The new test is added. In the case of MSVC this is now part of bincheck.
> > Patch has been tested on macos and Windows.
>
> This is a useful start. What I'd really like to see is that instead of
> running the full serial tests to populate the pre-upgrade database, we
> determine a useful subset of what that ends up generating and just
> populate with that.
That doesn't strike as particularly future proof. We intentionally
leave objects behind pg_regress runs, but that only works if we actually
run them...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-04-03 15:34:52 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-03 15:22:02 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test |