Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>
Cc: "pryzby@telsasoft.com" <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, "peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com" <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, "buschmann@nidsa.net" <buschmann@nidsa.net>, "andrew@dunslane.net" <andrew@dunslane.net>, "noah@leadboat.com" <noah@leadboat.com>, "tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com" <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, "bruce@momjian.us" <bruce@momjian.us>, "andres@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2021-09-11T18:19:04Z
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.

Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 13:33 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> I started this.  I don't know if it's compatible with the buildfarm client, but
>> I think any issues maybe can be avoided by using "IF EXISTS".

> Here are the differences I see on a first pass (without putting too
> much thought into how significant the differences are). Buildfarm code
> I'm comparing against is at [1].

I switched the CF entry for this to "Waiting on Author".  It's
been failing in the cfbot for a couple of months, and Jacob's
provided some review-ish comments here, so I think there's
plenty of reason to deem the ball to be in Justin's court.

			regards, tom lane