On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 01:59:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 09:43:40AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Do you think a new pg_upgrade test for security labels is worth the
>> trouble? It seems doable, but it'd be an awfully expensive test for this.
>> On the other hand, I'm not sure there's any coverage for pg_upgrade with
>> security labels, so perhaps this is a good time to establish some tests.
>
> I would argue in favor of these additions. Security labels are not
> the most popular thing ever, AFAIK, but your patch makes the need more
> relevant to have. The cheapest approach would be to add a LO creation
> pattern in src/bin/pg_dump/t/002_pg_dump.pl, with an EXTRA_INSTALL
> pointing at src/test/modules/dummy_seclabel/ to be able to create the
> security label (we already do that in pg_upgrade and pg_basebackup so
> the trick works). That should be enough to make sure that the binary
> upgrade dumps have the seclabel data included. It's a bit funky, I
> agree. So if you think that this is not worth the test cycles, I
> won't push hard on this point, either.
Ah, I'd forgotten about EXTRA_INSTALL. That simplifies things. There's
enough special handling for large objects in pg_upgrade that I think we
ought to test it end-to-end, so I sneaked it into 006_tranfer_modes.pl.
WDYT?
--
nathan
