Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqS3MEoAgbKVg=9id33Ufn8r2t4eT1ypn4LNhV4QL5cesA@mail.gmail.com
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  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
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 animals have upgraded to a newer version of the buildfarm client which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?
-- 
Michael


-- 
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: Vaishnavi Prabakaran
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Commits don't block for synchronous replication