* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > > More generally, though, I wonder how we can have some test coverage > > > > on such cases going forward. Is the patch below too ugly to commit > > > > permanently, and if so, what other idea can you suggest? > > > > > > I suggest a buildfarm animal running a custom buildfarm module that > > > exercises the pg_upgrade test from every supported version to the latest > > > stable and to master -- together with your proposed case that leaves a > > > toastless table around for pg_upgrade to handle. > > > > That would help greatly with pg_dump test coverage as well.. One of the > > problems of trying to get good LOC coverage of pg_dump is that a *lot* > > of the code is version-specific... > > If we can put together a script that runs test.sh for various versions > and then verifies the runs, we could use it in both buildfarm and > coverage.
One other point is that pg_dump goes quite a bit farther back than just what we currently support (or at least, it tries to). I think that, generally, that's a good thing, but it does mean we have a lot of cases that don't get tested nearly as much... I was able to get back to 7.4 up and running without too much trouble, but even that doesn't cover all the cases we have in pg_dump. I'm not sure if we want to define a "we will support pg_dump back to X" cut-off or if we want to try and get older versions to run on modern systems, but it's definitely worth pointing out that we're trying to support much farther back than what is currently supported in pg_dump today. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature