From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: SQL-standard function body
In-reply-to: <42affe76-48c4-a78c-e548-83a16b806af2@dunslane.net>
References: <E1lUEF5-00027L-N4@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <20210407225806.majgznh4lk34hjvu@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <1730972.1617836766@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAApHDvo4-Uqr3jPf7O0iHgy4igdGVRX8qYtkahqBws1sRnrRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210408015017.yb2tb324y6zt4o66@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <42affe76-48c4-a78c-e548-83a16b806af2@dunslane.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
	message dated "Thu, 08 Apr 2021 10:12:22 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1846547.1617893536.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 10:52:16 -0400
Message-ID: <1846548.1617893536@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1846548.1617893536%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 4/7/21 9:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I've wondered about that too. Perhaps we could reuse the pg_upgrade run?

> Honestly I'd prefer it if we could get rid of the rerun of 'make check'
> by pg_upgrade's test.sh and instead upgrade the data directory made by
> the earlier 'make check' run if it's still there (which would mean we'd
> need to stop it being deleted).

Good idea as far as speeding check-world and buildfarm runs, but I wonder
if we wouldn't be losing test coverage.  Seeing the number of times that
buildfarm runs have gotten through "make check" only to fail at the
re-run in pg_upgrade, it seems clear to me that there is something
different about the execution environment in the latter case.  I've
never been able to pin down quite what :-(

			regards, tom lane