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

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set
Date
Msg-id b5c54417-8b76-9318-ba92-c2a5427a6ddc@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/2/21 11:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 10/2/21 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> IIUC, the only problem for a non-updated animal would be that it'd
>>> run the test twice?  Or would it actually fail?  If the latter,
>>> we'd need to sit on the patch rather longer.
>> The patch removes test.sh, so yes it would break.
> Maybe we could leave test.sh in place for awhile?  I'd rather
> not cause a flag day for buildfarm owners.  (Also, how do we
> see this working in the back branches?)
>
>             


Actually, I was wrong. The module just does "make check" for non-MSVC.
For MSVC it calls vcregress.pl, which the patch doesn't touch (it
should, I think).


cheers


andrew



--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better
Next
From: Platon Pronko
Date:
Subject: Re: very long record lines in expanded psql output