Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:13:52PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:28:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > I think these patches could use some in-place documentation of what they are
> > > trying to achieve and how they do it. The required information is spread
> > > over a lengthy thread. No one wants to read that. Add commit messages to
> > > the patches.
> >
> > 0001 patch fixes pg_upgrade/test.sh, which was disfunctional.
> > Portions of the first patch were independently handled by commits 52202bb39,
> > fa744697c, 091866724. So this is rebased on those.
> > I guess updating this script should be a part of a beta-checklist somewhere,
> > since I guess nobody will want to backpatch changes for testing older releases.
>
> Uh, what exactly is missing from the beta checklist? I read the patch
> and commit message but don't understand it.

Did you try to use test.sh to upgrade from a prior release ?

Evidently it's frequently forgotten, as evidenced by all the "deferred
maintenance" I had to do to allow testing the main patch (currently 0003).

See also:

commit 5bab1985dfc25eecf4b098145789955c0b246160
Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Date: Thu Jun 8 13:48:27 2017 -0400

Fix bit-rot in pg_upgrade's test.sh, and improve documentation.

Doing a cross-version upgrade test with test.sh evidently hasn't been
tested since circa 9.2, because the script lacked case branches for
old-version servers newer than 9.1. Future-proof that a bit, and
clean up breakage induced by our recent drop of V0 function call
protocol (namely that oldstyle_length() isn't in the regression
suite anymore).

--
Justin