Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set
Date: 2021-10-10 14:07:43
Message-ID: 4f54cd76-756e-ba8e-0238-cacf6dbc971b@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03.10.21 09:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 11:34:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we could leave test.sh in place for awhile? I'd rather
>> not cause a flag day for buildfarm owners. (Also, how do we
>> see this working in the back branches?)
>
> I would be fine with test.sh staying around for now.

test.sh could be changed to invoke the TAP test.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-10-10 17:12:30 Re: Bug in DefineRange() with multiranges
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-10-10 14:04:31 Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side