Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set
Date: 2021-10-01 06:19:50
Message-ID: YVaohuWPb3oDl4nn@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:07:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This stuff still needs to be expanded depending on how PostgresNode is
> made backward-compatible, but I'll wait for that to happen before
> going further down here. I have also spent some time testing all that
> with MSVC, and the installation paths used for pg_regress&co make the
> script a tad more confusing, so I have dropped this part for now.

Andrew, as this is a bit tied to the buildfarm code and any
simplifications that could happen there, do you have any comments
and/or suggestions for this patch?

This still applies on HEAD and it holds all the properties of the
existing test by using PostgresNodes that point to older installations
for the business with binaries and libraries business. There is one
part where pg_upgrade logs into src/test/regress/, which is not good,
but that should be easily fixable.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-10-01 06:22:11 Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-10-01 05:50:20 Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side