Message-ID: <0b8ebc97-829c-4a40-efcc-761f52bffb0d@dunslane.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:07:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types
Content-Language: en-US
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us,
 peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
 buschmann@nidsa.net, noah@leadboat.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com,
 bruce@momjian.us, andres@anarazel.de
References: <20210112175356.GP4320@momjian.us>
 <66753439-83ae-7be5-6e41-9537a6041a39@dunslane.net>
 <d9f14840-9f6e-183d-f43a-9f9b9e1b6d19@enterprisedb.com>
 <1575064.1615060903@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20210430183348.GQ27406@telsasoft.com>
 <a31d593da98da15fc2302a16b3f3b32e491d3e49.camel@vmware.com>
 <20210912005116.GF26465@telsasoft.com> <YVa/se5gxr1PsXDy@paquier.xyz>
 <YWPNxDWFia+V4Y4g@paquier.xyz> <20211107192200.GK17618@telsasoft.com>
 <YZSov33oDwW44uMs@paquier.xyz>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: <YZSov33oDwW44uMs@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0b8ebc97-829c-4a40-efcc-761f52bffb0d%40dunslane.net>
Precedence: bulk


On 11/17/21 02:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> The oldest version tested by the buildfarm is 9.2, so we could ignore
> this part I guess?
>
> Andrew, what do you think about this part?  Based on my read of this
> thread, there is an agreement that this approach makes the buildfarm
> code more manageable so as committers would not need to patch the
> buildfarm code if their test fail.  I agree with this conclusion, but
> I wanted to double-check with you first.  This would need a backpatch
> down to 10 so as we could clean up a maximum of code in
> TestUpgradeXversion.pm without waiting for an extra 5 years.  Please
> note that I am fine to send a patch for the buildfarm client.
>
>

In general I'm in agreement with the direction here. If we can have a
script that applies to back branches to make them suitable for upgrade
testing instead of embedding this in the buildfarm client, so much the
better.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com