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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2022-05-12 05:27:30
Message-ID: YnyawnlheodeuFfS@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:32:55PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> Why did you discontinue testing the longstanding test database name?

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the test should
be changed to prefix each database name by "regression", as it was the
case in test.sh? Or do you mean that the backslash/double-quote
business should only apply to the first database name and not the
other two, implying that the new generate_db() in 002_pg_upgrade.pl
had better have a $prefix and a $suffix like it was originally
written?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2022-05-12 05:44:15 Re: gitmaster access
Previous Message Amit Langote 2022-05-12 05:27:26 Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes