Message-ID: <3ae56cf533e32a14338112901e5786d5641947f9.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Trial fix for old cross-version upgrades.
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <jdavis@postgresql.org>, Andrew Dunstan
 <andrew@dunslane.net>,  pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:00:07 -0800
In-Reply-To: <3871171.1740193028@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <E1tlBJt-000LUO-16@gemulon.postgresql.org>
	 <003dc9936317ab987faa0242f8e33e1cd2fcaf57.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <40c1e76334f2baa747334c8fc513d12b8cb297bf.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <3815127.1740189601@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3871171.1740193028@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3ae56cf533e32a14338112901e5786d5641947f9.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2025-02-21 at 21:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm.=C2=A0 I forced my local BF installation to run a v17-to-HEAD upgrade
> test, and it still failed, though seemingly with fewer diffs than
> the buildfarm is reporting for older branches.=C2=A0 (Diffs attached for
> amusement's sake.)=C2=A0 I don't believe we've made any definitional
> changes in the contents of pg_statistic since v17, so whatever's
> going on here seems a little subtler than I was hoping.

Also the non-buildfarm tests (src/bin/pg_upgrade/TESTING) are all
passing for versions 10+.

> I wonder if it'd be a good idea to rearrange TestUpgradeXversion.pm
> so that instead of testing upgrades from oldest prior version to
> newest, it tested from newest to oldest?=C2=A0 My thought here is that
> the oldest cases are most likely to fail, and when they do, it'd
> be valuable information to know which branches still work.

That's a good idea and would be a big help.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis