Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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: 2022-03-31 04:10:43
Message-ID: YkUpwzGHcAKlj81C@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 02:03:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Indeed. I have reworked the whole, rather than just those three
> sentences.

So, any particular feelings about this patch? This has been around
for a couple of months/years now, so it could be a good time to do the
switch now rather than wait an extra year, or even the beginning of
the next release cycle. And the buildfarm is already able to handle
that in its code based on the last release, by skipping the upgrade
check if it finds a pg_upgrade/t/ subdirectory.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-03-31 04:11:48 Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-03-31 04:08:00 Re: pgsql: Add 'basebackup_to_shell' contrib module.