Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set

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: 2021-10-03 03:34:38
Message-ID: 3735235.1633232078@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:
> On 10/2/21 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> The patch removes test.sh, so yes it would break.

Maybe we could leave test.sh in place for awhile? I'd rather
not cause a flag day for buildfarm owners. (Also, how do we
see this working in the back branches?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-10-03 03:48:06 Re: BUG #16040: PL/PGSQL RETURN QUERY statement never uses a parallel plan
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-10-03 03:32:36 Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set