Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:15:39 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test
Message-ID: <20170919091539.behljxflfojndrob@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB7nPqS3MEoAgbKVg=9id33Ufn8r2t4eT1ypn4LNhV4QL5cesA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or we could make upgradecheck a noop, then remove it once all the MSVC
> > animals have upgraded to a newer version of the buildfarm client which
> > does not use upgradecheck anymore (I am fine to send a patch or a pull
> > request to Andrew for that).
> 
> This patch is logged as "waiting on author" in the current commit
> fest, but any new patch will depend on the feedback that any other
> hacker has to offer based on the set of ideas I have posted upthread.
> Hence I am yet unsure what is the correct way to move things forward.
> So, any opinions? Peter or others?

I think the first step is to send the rebased version of the patch.  It
was last posted in April ...

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers