From: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PGXS testing upgrade paths |
Date: | 2020-09-21 15:42:18 |
Message-ID: | CAAaqYe-ahM3NupNg6+=oo-HTRzHT_YWFJD7Bwbuey-U9EYfmfg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:36 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > If there's a better list than this, please let me know, but I figured
> > hackers is appropriate since the extension building infrastructure is
> > documented in core.
>
> > While working on an in-house extension I realized that while PGXS
> > provides the standard regression test infrastructure, I'm not aware of
> > an automatic or standard way to test all upgrade paths provided by the
> > extension.
>
> The recommended way to deal with updates these days is to leave the
> original extension script as-is and just write update scripts
> (1.0--1.1, 1.1--1.2, etc). That way, application of the updates
> is tested automatically every time you do CREATE EXTENSION.
Ah, so just don't add a new 1.2 file, etc.
That also implies not having more direct upgrade paths (e.g., 1.0--1.2)?
> Now, if you also want to check that the intermediate states still
> behave as intended, I don't see much of a solution that doesn't
> involve custom test scaffolding.
Yeah, I'm not so much concerned about intermediate states so much as
multiple upgrade paths and/or multiple single-version install files
(which you replied to already above).
James
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-21 16:01:12 | Re: PGXS testing upgrade paths |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-21 15:36:32 | Re: PGXS testing upgrade paths |