Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > I wonder- what if we had an option to pg_dump to explicitly tell it what > > the server's version is and then have TAP tests to run with different > > versions? > > Uh ... telling it what the version is doesn't make that true, so I'd > have no confidence in a test^H^H^H^Hkluge done that way. The way > to test is to point it at an *actual* back-branch server.
I certainly agree that this would be ideal, but nonetheless, I've seen multiple cases where just trying to run the query, even against a current version, would have shown that it's malformed or has some issue which needs fixing and today we haven't even got that. > Andrew has a buildfarm module that does precisely that, although > I'm not sure what its test dataset is --- probably the regression > database from each branch. I also have a habit of doing such testing > manually whenever I touch version-sensitive parts of pg_dump. I've gotten better about doing that back-branch testing myself and certainly prefer it, but I think we should also have buildfarm coverage. I don't think we have the full matrix covered, or, really, anything anywhere near it, so I'm looking for other options to at least get that code exercised. > Dunno about the idea of running the pg_dump TAP tests against back > branches. I find that code sufficiently unreadable that maintaining > several more copies of it doesn't sound like fun at all. I hadn't been thinking we'd need more copies of it, simply a few more runs which have different version values specified, though even just doing a pg_dump of the regression suite for each combination would be something. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
