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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set
Date
Msg-id YoHhWD5vQzb2mmiF@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 01:27:28AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> Here, I requested the rationale for the differences you had just described.
> You made a choice to stop testing one list of database names and start testing
> a different list of database names.  Why?

Because the shape of the new names does not change the test coverage
("regression" prefix or the addition of the double quotes with
backslashes for all the database names), while keeping the code a bit
simpler.  If you think that the older names are more adapted, I have
no objections to use them, FWIW, which is something like the patch
attached would achieve.

This uses the same convention as vcregress.pl before 322becb, but not
the one of test.sh where "regression" was appended to the database
names.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: list of TransactionIds
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Make relfile tombstone files conditional on WAL level