From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two |
Date: | 2018-03-21 14:51:04 |
Message-ID: | 0b59536a-2d31-7573-6505-1860d00618bd@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/6/18 4:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 3/4/18 16:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> If you want to do this soon I can put out a Buildfarm Client release
>>> fairly quickly.
>
>> I think the dependency is mostly the other way around. How quickly
>> would build farm owners install the upgrade?
>
> IIUC, the buildfarm script patch is only needed to avoid duplicate
> tests. So owners need only install it if they want to reduce wasted
> cycles on their machines. That being the case, it's only urgent to
> the extent that the individual owner perceives it to be. Some might
> think it is so, so I'd like to see the BF release available before
> we push the TAP test ... but we don't have to wait very long between.
It seems the consensus is that we'll need a build farm update before we
can move forward with the patch and that we don't need to wait long for
people to upgrade.
Andrew, do you have a date for the next release?
Thanks,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-21 14:55:08 | Re: Hash join in SELECT target list expression keeps consuming memory |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2018-03-21 14:31:24 | Re: Re: Re: Boolean partitions syntax |