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 b8293b8c-2814-723c-5fdb-4496f3983cf8@dunslane.net
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  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/1/21 2:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:07:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> This stuff still needs to be expanded depending on how PostgresNode is
>> made backward-compatible, but I'll wait for that to happen before
>> going further down here.  I have also spent some time testing all that
>> with MSVC, and the installation paths used for pg_regress&co make the
>> script a tad more confusing, so I have dropped this part for now.
> Andrew, as this is a bit tied to the buildfarm code and any
> simplifications that could happen there, do you have any comments
> and/or suggestions for this patch?



I haven't looked at the patch closely yet, but from a buildfarm POV I
think the only thing that needs to be done is to inhibit the buildfarm
client module if the TAP tests are present. The buildfarm code that runs
TAP tests should automatically detect and run the new test.

I've just counted and there are 116 animals reporting check-pg_upgrade,
so we'd better put that out pronto. It's a little early but I'll try to
push out a release containing code for it on Monday or Tuesday (it's a
one line addition).


cheers


andrew


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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding CI to our tree
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set