From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | 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: | 2021-10-02 20:58:47 |
Message-ID: | b8293b8c-2814-723c-5fdb-4496f3983cf8@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/1/21 2:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:07:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> This stuff still needs to be expanded depending on how PostgresNode is
>> made backward-compatible, but I'll wait for that to happen before
>> going further down here. I have also spent some time testing all that
>> with MSVC, and the installation paths used for pg_regress&co make the
>> script a tad more confusing, so I have dropped this part for now.
> Andrew, as this is a bit tied to the buildfarm code and any
> simplifications that could happen there, do you have any comments
> and/or suggestions for this patch?
I haven't looked at the patch closely yet, but from a buildfarm POV I
think the only thing that needs to be done is to inhibit the buildfarm
client module if the TAP tests are present. The buildfarm code that runs
TAP tests should automatically detect and run the new test.
I've just counted and there are 116 animals reporting check-pg_upgrade,
so we'd better put that out pronto. It's a little early but I'll try to
push out a release containing code for it on Monday or Tuesday (it's a
one line addition).
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-02 21:03:33 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-02 20:44:44 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |