| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |
| Date: | 2021-10-02 21:03:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3715954.1633208613@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I haven't looked at the patch closely yet, but from a buildfarm POV I
> think the only thing that needs to be done is to inhibit the buildfarm
> client module if the TAP tests are present. The buildfarm code that runs
> TAP tests should automatically detect and run the new test.
> I've just counted and there are 116 animals reporting check-pg_upgrade,
> so we'd better put that out pronto. It's a little early but I'll try to
> push out a release containing code for it on Monday or Tuesday (it's a
> one line addition).
IIUC, the only problem for a non-updated animal would be that it'd
run the test twice? Or would it actually fail? If the latter,
we'd need to sit on the patch rather longer.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-10-02 21:10:09 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-10-02 20:58:47 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |