Horton

Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, buschmann@nidsa.net, noah@leadboat.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, andres@anarazel.de
Date: 2021-11-17T15:07:17Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Move into separate file all the SQL queries used in pg_upgrade tests

  2. Add table to regression tests for binary-compatibility checks in pg_upgrade

  3. Fix tests of pg_upgrade across different major versions

  4. Multirange datatypes

  5. Work around cross-version-upgrade issues created by commit 9e38c2bb5.

  6. Declare assorted array functions using anycompatible not anyelement.

  7. Remove factorial operators, leaving only the factorial() function.

  8. Create by default sql/ and expected/ for output directory in pg_regress

  9. Add missing include to pg_upgrade/version.c

  10. Improve the check for pg_catalog.line data type in pg_upgrade

  11. Improve the check for pg_catalog.unknown data type in pg_upgrade

  12. Check for tables with sql_identifier during pg_upgrade

  13. pg_upgrade: clarify the database names in error files

  14. In the pg_upgrade test suite, don't write to src/test/regress.

  15. Allow group access on PGDATA

  16. Refactor dir/file permissions

  17. Remove unused functions in regress.c.

  18. Make WAL segment size configurable at initdb time.

  19. Fix bit-rot in pg_upgrade's test.sh, and improve documentation.

On 11/17/21 02:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> The oldest version tested by the buildfarm is 9.2, so we could ignore
> this part I guess?
>
> Andrew, what do you think about this part?  Based on my read of this
> thread, there is an agreement that this approach makes the buildfarm
> code more manageable so as committers would not need to patch the
> buildfarm code if their test fail.  I agree with this conclusion, but
> I wanted to double-check with you first.  This would need a backpatch
> down to 10 so as we could clean up a maximum of code in
> TestUpgradeXversion.pm without waiting for an extra 5 years.  Please
> note that I am fine to send a patch for the buildfarm client.
>
>

In general I'm in agreement with the direction here. If we can have a
script that applies to back branches to make them suitable for upgrade
testing instead of embedding this in the buildfarm client, so much the
better.


cheers


andrew

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