| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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: | 2017-04-04 13:52:17 |
| Message-ID: | 42d412a2-9cd7-7ee1-0c1a-e8d230d568b0@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/3/17 11:32, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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...
I generally agree with the sentiments expressed later in this thread.
But just to clarify what I meant here: We don't need to run a, say,
1-minute serial test to load a few "left behind" objects for the
pg_upgrade test, if we can load the same set of objects using dedicated
scripting in say 2 seconds. This would make both the pg_upgrade tests
faster and would reduce the hidden dependencies in the main tests about
which kinds of objects need to be left behind.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2017-04-04 13:53:14 | Re: Re: PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum and bt_page_items(bytea) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-04 13:45:26 | Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql |