* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> > Ugh.  Thanks for fixing.  I had tested back to 7.4 with the regression
> > tests but either those didn't include blobs or something got changed
> > after my testing and I didn't re-test all the way back when I should
> > have.
> It looks like the final state of the regression tests doesn't include
> any blobs before about 9.4.  You wouldn't have seen any results worse
> than a warning message in 7.4-8.4, unless there were some blobs so that
> the data extraction loop got iterated.
> It might be a good idea to retroactively modify 9.1-9.3 so that there
> are some blobs in the final state, for purposes of testing pg_dump and
> pg_upgrade.

I certainly think that would be a good idea.  I thought we had been
insisting on coverage via the regression tests for a lot farther back
than 9.4. though perhaps that was only for newer features and we never
went back and added it for existing capabilities.

What would be really nice would be code coverage information for the
back-branches also, as that would allow us to figure out what we're
missing coverage for.  I realize that we don't like adding new things to
back-branches as those changes could impact packagers, but that might
not impact them since that only runs when you run 'make coverage'.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to