Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-04-05 10:50:19 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Probably because the point was brought up that the regression tests for > > pg_upgrade spend a bunch of time doing something which, ultimately, > > don't actually add any real value. Yes, there are bits of the core > > regression tests that currently add value over what we have through > > other approaches, but that's not where the bulk of running those tests > > go. > > Create a separate patch [& thread] about that, don't conflate the > topics. I'm very much in favor of this rewrite, I'm very much not in > favor of only using some targeted testsuite. By combining two > independent changes, you're just making it less likely that anything > happens.
I've made it clear, I thought, a couple of times that I agree with the rewrite and that we should move forward with it. Nothing on this sub-thread changes that. It's also registered in the 2017-07 commitfest, so I wouldn't think that there's a risk of it being forgotten or that we need to cut off all discussion about what may change between now and July that would be relevant to this patch. > > We don't look at the gin index after the upgrade in the current > > pg_upgrade testing, so I don't see why you feel it's at all valuable. > > It's be trivial to add a VACUUM to the point where analyze_new_cluster > is currently run. And I've previously run more manual tests. Is that > perfect - no, definitely not. Being trivial doesn't mean it's something we're actually doing today. Given that we aren't actually changing anything in the index during a same-version pg_upgrade, nor are we changing the code that's run by that VACUUM, I'm curious just what we're ending up testing that's different from just restarting the existing cluster and running a new VACUUM. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature