|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|Cc:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Or we could make upgradecheck a noop, then remove it once all the MSVC
>> > animals have upgraded to a newer version of the buildfarm client which
>> > does not use upgradecheck anymore (I am fine to send a patch or a pull
>> > request to Andrew for that).
>> This patch is logged as "waiting on author" in the current commit
>> fest, but any new patch will depend on the feedback that any other
>> hacker has to offer based on the set of ideas I have posted upthread.
>> Hence I am yet unsure what is the correct way to move things forward.
>> So, any opinions? Peter or others?
> I think the first step is to send the rebased version of the patch. It
> was last posted in April ...
Here you go. I have not done anything fancy for cross-version tests yet.
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2017-09-19 11:48:42||Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Perform only one ReadControlFile() during startup.|
|Previous Message||Dilip Kumar||2017-09-19 10:41:50||Re: path toward faster partition pruning|