| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <jdavis(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Trial fix for old cross-version upgrades. |
| Date: | 2025-02-22 03:00:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3ae56cf533e32a14338112901e5786d5641947f9.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Fri, 2025-02-21 at 21:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm. I forced my local BF installation to run a v17-to-HEAD upgrade
> test, and it still failed, though seemingly with fewer diffs than
> the buildfarm is reporting for older branches. (Diffs attached for
> amusement's sake.) I don't believe we've made any definitional
> changes in the contents of pg_statistic since v17, so whatever's
> going on here seems a little subtler than I was hoping.
Also the non-buildfarm tests (src/bin/pg_upgrade/TESTING) are all
passing for versions 10+.
> I wonder if it'd be a good idea to rearrange TestUpgradeXversion.pm
> so that instead of testing upgrades from oldest prior version to
> newest, it tested from newest to oldest? My thought here is that
> the oldest cases are most likely to fail, and when they do, it'd
> be valuable information to know which branches still work.
That's a good idea and would be a big help.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-02-22 03:11:06 | Re: pgsql: Trial fix for old cross-version upgrades. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-02-22 02:57:08 | Re: pgsql: Trial fix for old cross-version upgrades. |