| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2021-10-12 04:45:48 |
| Message-ID: | YWUS/KiQbCbojTJT@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 08:22:57AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Actually, I was wrong. The module just does "make check" for non-MSVC.
> For MSVC it calls vcregress.pl, which the patch doesn't touch (it
> should, I think).
Yes, it should. And I'd like to do things so as we replace all the
internals of upgradecheck() by a call to tap_check(). The patch does
not work yet properly with MSVC, and there were some problems in
getting the invocation of pg_regress right as far as I recall. That's
why I have left this part for now. I don't see why we could not do
the MSVC part as an independent step though, getting rid of test.sh is
appealing enough in itself.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-10-12 04:48:29 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2021-10-12 04:33:39 | Re: postgres_fdw: misplaced? comments in connection.c |