Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test
Date
Msg-id 20170919091539.behljxflfojndrob@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.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 animals have upgraded to a newer version of the buildfarm client which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?

I think the first step is to send the rebased version of the patch.  It
was last posted in April ...

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
Next
From: Rafia Sabih
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables