Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types

On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 13:33 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 03:01:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > v4-0001 mostly teaches test.sh about specific changes that have to be
> > made to historic versions of the regression database to allow them
> > to be reloaded into current servers. As already discussed, this is
> > really duplicative of knowledge that's been embedded into the buildfarm
> > client over time. It'd be better if we could refactor that so that
> > the buildfarm shares a common database of these actions with test.sh.
> > And said database ought to be in our git tree, so committers could
> > fix problems without having to get Andrew involved every time.
> > I think this could be represented as a psql script, at least in
> > versions that have psql \if (but that came in in v10, so maybe
> > we're there already).
>
> I started this. I don't know if it's compatible with the buildfarm client, but
> I think any issues maybe can be avoided by using "IF EXISTS".

I'm going to try pulling this into a psql script today and see how far
I get.

> > But I'm not sure I believe
> > that query. It's got hard-wired assumptions about which typtype values
> > need to be covered. Why is it okay to exclude range and multirange?
> > Are we sure that all composites are okay to exclude? Likewise, the
> > restriction to pg_catalog and information_schema schemas seems likely to
> > bite us someday. There are some very random exclusions based on name
> > patterns, which seem unsafe (let's list the specific type OIDs), and
> > again the nearby comments don't match the code. But the biggest issue
> > is that this can only cover core datatypes, not any contrib stuff.
>
> I changed to use regtype/OIDs, included range/multirange and stopped including
> only pg_catalog/information_schema. But didn't yet handle composites.

Per cfbot, this test needs to be taught about the new
pg_brin_bloom_summary and pg_brin_minmax_multi_summary types.

--Jacob