Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing
Date: 2011-09-02 23:49:12
Message-ID: 15239.1315007352@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 09/02/2011 06:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> It won't work, unless you have a solution for fixing the paths of the
>> shared library modules used by the regression tests.

> Well, we could drop those functions and not run tests that require them. 
> Or we could possibly install the libraries in $libdir and hack pg_proc 
> accordingly. We'd have to install them on both the source and 
> destination branches, of course.

The only one that's problematic is pg_regress.so; contrib modules are
already installed in $libdir.  I still think that installing
pg_regress.so in $libdir may be the most reasonable solution, assuming
that the delta involved isn't too great.  Yeah, we would have to
back-patch the changes into every release branch we want to test
upgrading from, but how risky is that really?  The *only* thing it
affects is the regression tests.

Maybe I should produce a draft patch for moving pg_regress.so that way,
and we could see how big a delta it really is.

> Maybe we need to develop a test db specifically for pg_upgrade anyway.

Possibly, but it'll always be more impoverished than the regular
regression test DBs IMO.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-09-03 00:20:19
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-09-02 23:42:41
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group