Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:49:22 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: 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,
	andrew@dunslane.net, noah@leadboat.com,
	tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types
Message-ID: <YagmIoTml2NGXWX8@paquier.xyz>
References: <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>
 <20211118044728.GI17618@telsasoft.com>
 <YZX5ijyrhvEgPAoE@paquier.xyz>
 <YaciEMkHNumImMpk@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Rlyxy0jfFnG1zkVO"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YaciEMkHNumImMpk@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YagmIoTml2NGXWX8%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--Rlyxy0jfFnG1zkVO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 04:19:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I'll get that done down to 10 to maximize its influence, then I'll
> move on with the buildfarm code and send a patch to plug this and
> reduce the dependencies between core and the buildfarm code.

Okay, I have checked this one this morning, and applied the split down
to 10, so as we have a way to fix objects from the main regression
test suite.  The buildfarm client gets a bit cleaned up after that (I
have a patch for that, but I am not 100% sure that it is right).

Still, the global picture is larger than that because there is still
nothing done for contrib/ modules included in cross-version checks of
pg_upgrade by the buildfarm.  The core code tests don't do this much,
but if we were to do the same things as the buildfarm, then we would
need to run installcheck-world (roughly) on a deployed instance, then
pg_upgrade it.  That's not going to be cheap, for sure.

One thing that we could do is to use unique names for the databases of
the contrib/ modules when running an installcheck, so as these are
preserved for upgrades (the buildfarm client does that).  This has as
effect to increase the number of databases for an instance
installcheck'ed, so this had better be optional, at least.
--
Michael

--Rlyxy0jfFnG1zkVO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=rcrm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Rlyxy0jfFnG1zkVO--