Thread: Backpatch src/test/modules to 9.3?

Backpatch src/test/modules to 9.3?

From
Andres Freund
Date:
Hi,

When discussing multixacts around pgcon (including the developer
meeting) we decided that we want to add test code to make exercising the
truncation code easier.

In master the most logical place for that seems to be src/test/modules.
Unfortunately 9.3/9.4 don't have that. Given that the multixact code
isn't the same in the backbranches, and will hopefully diverge further,
I'd rather have tests there. So maybe we should just add
src/test/modules there? These then will not be exercised by the
buildfarm, but the affected code isn't particularly platform dependant,
so that doesn't worry me much?

Comments, better ideas?

Regards,

Andres



Re: Backpatch src/test/modules to 9.3?

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> When discussing multixacts around pgcon (including the developer
> meeting) we decided that we want to add test code to make exercising the
> truncation code easier.

> In master the most logical place for that seems to be src/test/modules.
> Unfortunately 9.3/9.4 don't have that. Given that the multixact code
> isn't the same in the backbranches, and will hopefully diverge further,
> I'd rather have tests there. So maybe we should just add
> src/test/modules there? These then will not be exercised by the
> buildfarm, but the affected code isn't particularly platform dependant,
> so that doesn't worry me much?

Presumably, once the files are there, it would be a simple adjustment
to get the buildfarm to run those tests in branches >= 9.3 rather
than >= 9.5.  So +1 for back-patching this infrastructure.
        regards, tom lane



Re: Backpatch src/test/modules to 9.3?

From
Michael Paquier
Date:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> When discussing multixacts around pgcon (including the developer
>> meeting) we decided that we want to add test code to make exercising the
>> truncation code easier.
>
>> In master the most logical place for that seems to be src/test/modules.
>> Unfortunately 9.3/9.4 don't have that. Given that the multixact code
>> isn't the same in the backbranches, and will hopefully diverge further,
>> I'd rather have tests there. So maybe we should just add
>> src/test/modules there? These then will not be exercised by the
>> buildfarm, but the affected code isn't particularly platform dependant,
>> so that doesn't worry me much?
>
> Presumably, once the files are there, it would be a simple adjustment
> to get the buildfarm to run those tests in branches >= 9.3 rather
> than >= 9.5.  So +1 for back-patching this infrastructure.

And let's not care about MSVC stuff in REL9_4_STABLE and REL9_3_STABLE
as well. The integration of src/test/modules has required some
refactoring of the MSVC scripts as those are basically extensions as
they needed to be identified as such in a path different than
contrib/, note as well that they are included in the installation to
facilitate their testing. And I don't think that we want to backpatch
this heavy refactoring in REL9_4_STABLE and REL9_3_STABLE for
stability's sake. Running them on other platforms is a good plan, so
+1 for having them, without diffs in src/tools/msvc of course. They
will be picked up by MinGW at least on Windows.
-- 
Michael