Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/3/17 11:32, Andres Freund wrote:
>> That doesn't strike as particularly future proof. We intentionally
>> leave objects behind pg_regress runs, but that only works if we actually
>> run them...
>
> I generally agree with the sentiments expressed later in this thread.
> But just to clarify what I meant here: We don't need to run a, say,
> 1-minute serial test to load a few "left behind" objects for the
> pg_upgrade test, if we can load the same set of objects using dedicated
> scripting in say 2 seconds. This would make both the pg_upgrade tests
> faster and would reduce the hidden dependencies in the main tests about
> which kinds of objects need to be left behind.

Making the tests run shorter while maintaining the current code
coverage is nice. But this makes more complicated the test suite
maintenance as this needs either a dedicated regression schedule or an
extra test suite where objects are created just for the sake of
pg_upgrade. This increases the risks of getting a rotten test suite
with the time if patch makers and reviewers are not careful.
--
Michael