From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: some pg_dump query code simplification |
Date: | 2018-08-28 22:05:57 |
Message-ID: | 8085.1535493957@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> I wonder- what if we had an option to pg_dump to explicitly tell it what
> the server's version is and then have TAP tests to run with different
> versions?
Uh ... telling it what the version is doesn't make that true, so I'd
have no confidence in a test^H^H^H^Hkluge done that way. The way
to test is to point it at an *actual* back-branch server.
Andrew has a buildfarm module that does precisely that, although
I'm not sure what its test dataset is --- probably the regression
database from each branch. I also have a habit of doing such testing
manually whenever I touch version-sensitive parts of pg_dump.
Dunno about the idea of running the pg_dump TAP tests against back
branches. I find that code sufficiently unreadable that maintaining
several more copies of it doesn't sound like fun at all.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-08-28 22:10:29 | Re: some pg_dump query code simplification |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-08-28 22:01:58 | Re: Some pgq table rewrite incompatibility with logical decoding? |