| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: | 2021-10-03 12:22:57 |
| Message-ID: | b5c54417-8b76-9318-ba92-c2a5427a6ddc@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/2/21 11:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 10/2/21 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> IIUC, the only problem for a non-updated animal would be that it'd
>>> run the test twice? Or would it actually fail? If the latter,
>>> we'd need to sit on the patch rather longer.
>> The patch removes test.sh, so yes it would break.
> Maybe we could leave test.sh in place for awhile? I'd rather
> not cause a flag day for buildfarm owners. (Also, how do we
> see this working in the back branches?)
>
>
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).
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Platon Pronko | 2021-10-03 12:57:33 | Re: very long record lines in expanded psql output |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-10-03 11:35:24 | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better |