Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two
Date: 2018-04-09 00:38:23
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:04:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> At the end, it seems to me that what I am proposing is themost readable
> approach, and with proper documentation things should be handled
> finely... Or there is an approach you have in mind I do not foresee?

With feature freeze which has been reached, I am marking this patch as
returned with feedback. Please note that I have no plans to resubmit
again this patch set after this second attempt as I have no idea where
we want things to go.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-04-09 00:47:06 Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend
Previous Message Christophe Pettus 2018-04-08 23:27:57 Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS