| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test |
| Date: | 2017-09-19 04:30:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS3MEoAgbKVg=9id33Ufn8r2t4eT1ypn4LNhV4QL5cesA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 animals have upgraded to a newer version of the buildfarm client which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?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-09-19 05:26:46 | Re: Commits don't block for synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Vaishnavi Prabakaran | 2017-09-19 04:24:55 | Re: Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks |