On 26/06/2024 03:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:12:42AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
FWIW I successfully used the preliminary PqFFI stuff Andrew posted to
write a test program for bug #18377, which I think ended up being better
than with BackgroundPsql, so I think it's a good way forward. As for
back-patching it, I suspect we're going to end up backpatching the
framework anyway just because we'll want to have it available for
backpatching future tests, even if we keep a backpatch minimal by doing
only the framework and not existing tests.
I also backpatched the PqFFI and PostgreSQL::Session modules to older PG
branches, to run my test program there. This required only removing
some lines from PqFFI.pm that were about importing libpq functions that
older libpq didn't have.
Nice! I definitely +1 the backpatching of the testing bits. This
stuff can make validating bugs so much easier, particularly when there
are conflicting parts in the backend after a cherry-pick.
I haven't looked closely at the new PgFFI stuff but +1 on that in
general, and it makes sense to backport that once it lands on master. In
the meanwhile, I think we should backport BackgroundPsql as it is, to
make it possible to backport tests using it right now, even if it is
short-lived.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
