On 2017-04-03 11:34:52 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Peter, > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > On 4/3/17 09:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > I had for some time a WIP patch on which dust has accumulated, so > > > attached is a more polished version. In more details, here is what > > > happens: > > > - test.sh is removed. > > > - vcregress.pl loses upgradecheck. > > > - The new test is added. In the case of MSVC this is now part of bincheck. > > > Patch has been tested on macos and Windows. > > > > This is a useful start. What I'd really like to see is that instead of > > running the full serial tests to populate the pre-upgrade database, we > > determine a useful subset of what that ends up generating and just > > populate with that. > > In the past, we've had the notion that the regression tests are intended > to also cover pg_upgrade/pg_dump by "leaving things around". What I > found in my efforts to provide better coverage in pg_dump is that there > was quite a bit of coverage missing using that approach. > > Perhaps that could be fixed, but I tend to think it's a better approach > to have a complete set of pg_upgrade/pg_dump tests in one place that > doesn't also have a bunch of other tests mixed in (and would also mean > that the regular regression tests could be 'clean'). > > I could also see us defining one set of commands to run which create > every type of object in the system that pg_dump understands and then > using that to perform the pg_dump and pg_upgrade tests. Those commands > would have to be annotated with minimum major version and maximum major > version, assuming we're going to use them cross-version, but that should > be reasonably straight-forward to do. > > Another question is how much sense it makes to test this logic, > essentially, twice. The testing of pg_dump covers the pg_dump code, > which is what pg_upgrade uses anyway. The pg_upgrade tests really need > to cover the non-pg_dump-related parts, assuming we have appropriate > coverage in the pg_dump tests for the --binary-upgrade mode. Of course, > if we don't, then we should go about fixing that. There are certainly > some tests now but perhaps we need more or need to have improvmenets > made there.
I don't fundamentally disagree with anything here, but I think it'd be a serious mistake to link this to the conversion of the pg_upgrade tests to tap tests. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers