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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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: 2022-04-01 01:16:48
Message-ID: YkZSgJ8tGy2tAWwf@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 09:49:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, let's go ahead with it and see what happens. If it's too
> much of a mess we can always revert.

Okay, done after an extra round of self-review. I have finished by
tweaking a couple of comments, and adjusted further TESTING to explain
what needs to be done to have a dump compatible with the test. Let's
now see what goes wrong.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2022-04-01 01:31:10 Re: Use "WAL segment" instead of "log segment" consistently in user-facing messages
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2022-04-01 01:16:11 Re: unlogged sequences