From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: Fixes required for cross version update testing |
Date: | 2023-01-14 00:33:38 |
Message-ID: | 20230114003338.GA9837@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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).
--
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-14 00:48:16 | Extracting cross-version-upgrade knowledge from buildfarm client |
Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2023-01-14 00:18:23 | Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN |