Re: pg_upgrade: Test --check with a running source server

On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 7:27 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 06:54:52PM +0800, Ewan Young wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 4:19 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > 0001 attached adds coverage with the source still running. This covers live server
> > > detection, connection details from postmaster.pid, control data from pg_controldata,
> > > reuse of the running postmaster, and the requirement for different source and target
> > > ports.
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I had a look at both patches.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > One optional thought on the success case in 002: command_like()
> > matching the live-mode banner would be a bit more precise than
> > command_ok(), since exit code 0 alone can't tell a live check from an
> > offline one (against a stopped old server, pg_upgrade would start it
> > itself and succeed just the same):
> >
> > command_like(..., qr/Performing Consistency Checks on Old Live Server/, ...)
>
> The preceding test already proves that live mode is selected by checking that
> using the same port error, which is specific to live checks. That said, matching
> the banner makes it self contained, so changed it that way in the attached v2.

Fair point -- and thanks for the new version (and the credit).

v2 looks good to me. Re-tested both patches on top of current master:
the pg_upgrade and pg_ctl TAP suites pass, including the no-stderr
check that command_like() adds. Nothing more from me.

>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Bertrand Drouvot
> PostgreSQL Contributors Team
> RDS Open Source Databases
> Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

--
Regards,
Ewan Young