Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set
Date
Msg-id 20220401034241.GA3682158@rfd.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 10:16:48AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.

The REL_14 buildfarm client did not grab logs from the first failure:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=wrasse&dt=2022-04-01%2001%3A39%3A04

The failure looked like this:

# Running: diff -q
/export/home/nm/farm/studio64v12_6/HEAD/pgsql.build/src/bin/pg_upgrade/tmp_check/tmp_test_lPFv/dump1.sql
/export/home/nm/farm/studio64v12_6/HEAD/pgsql.build/src/bin/pg_upgrade/tmp_check/tmp_test_lPFv/dump2.sql
/usr/bin/diff: illegal option -- q
usage: diff [-bitw] [-c | -e | -f | -h | -n | -u] file1 file2
       diff [-bitw] [-C number | -U number] file1 file2
       diff [-bitw] [-D string] file1 file2
       diff [-bitw] [-c | -e | -f | -h | -n | -u] [-l] [-r] [-s] [-S name] directory1 directory2
not ok 4 - old and new dump match after pg_upgrade



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning