Hi,
On 2025-03-18 10:04:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm not quite sure what the best thing is to do is for the pg_upgrade
> > tests in particular, and it may well be best to do as you propose for
> > now and figure that out later. But I question whether just rerunning
> > all of those tests with several different mode flags is the right
> > thing to do. Why for example does 005_char_signedness.pl need to be
> > checked under both --link and --clone? I would guess that there are
> > one or maybe two tests in src/bin/pg_upgrade/t that needs to test
> > --link and --clone and they should grow internal loops to do that
> > (when supported by the local platform) and PG_UPGRADE_TEST_MODE should
> > go in the garbage.
>
> +1
>
> I'd be particularly allergic to running 002_pg_upgrade.pl multiple
> times, as that's one of our most expensive tests, and I flat out
> don't believe that expending that many cycles could be justified.
> Surely we can test these modes sufficiently in some much cheaper and
> more targeted way.
+1
It's useful to have coverage of as many object types as possible in pg_upgrade
- hence 002_pg_upgrade.pl. It helps us to find problems in new code that
didn't think about pg_upgrade.
But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to run all other pg_upgrade tests
the same way, to the contrary - the cost is too high.
Even leaving runtime aside, I have a hard time believing that --link, --clone,
--swap benefit from running the same way as 002_pg_upgrade.pl - the
implementation of those flags is on a lower level and works the same across
e.g. different index AMs.
I'd go so far as to say that 002_pg_upgrade.pl style testing actually makes it
*harder* to diagnose problems related to things like --link, because there are
no targeted tests, but just a huge set of things that maybe allow to infer
some bug if you spend a lot of time.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
