Re: [BUG] pg_upgrade test fails from older versions.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <aamelnikov(at)inbox(dot)ru>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [BUG] pg_upgrade test fails from older versions.
Date: 2022-12-27 05:44:38
Message-ID: Y6qGRlvdNZHq1xRt@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 09:22:08AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> Made a separate patch for it: v3-0001-Fix-dumps-filtering.patch

Well, the thing about this part is that is it is not needed: the same
can be achieved with 0002 in place.

> Yes, indeed. It will be really simpler.
> Made it in the v3-0002-Add-external-dumps-filtering.patch

I have fixed a few things in the patch, like switching the step
skipping comments with a regexp, adding one step to ignore empty
lines, applying a proper indentation and fixing comments here and
there (TESTING was incorrect, btw).

It is worth noting that perlcritic was complaining here, as eval is
getting used with a string. I have spent a few days looking at that,
and I really want a maximum of flexibility in the rules that can be
applied so I have put a "no critic" rule, which is fine by me as this
extra file is something owned by the user and it would apply only to
cross-version upgrades.

So it looks like we are now done here.. With all these pieces in
place in the tests, I don't see why it would not be possible to
automate the cross-version tests of pg_upgrade.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2022-12-27 05:55:30 build gcc warning
Previous Message John Naylor 2022-12-27 05:24:18 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum