From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three -
 remastered set
In-reply-to: <b8293b8c-2814-723c-5fdb-4496f3983cf8@dunslane.net>
References: <YJ8xTmLQkotVLpN5@paquier.xyz>
 <cb0bfbb9-a3bb-c43a-73bd-651e801193f2@dunslane.net>
 <YKHNLQlZYMxL7wBO@paquier.xyz>
 <e3d251fc-b3b1-d254-2b4f-70a6dcce5b29@dunslane.net>
 <YKMcbKePfS6BHKXz@paquier.xyz> <YKX8vOWo9iov7BJw@paquier.xyz>
 <YVaohuWPb3oDl4nn@paquier.xyz>
 <b8293b8c-2814-723c-5fdb-4496f3983cf8@dunslane.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
	message dated "Sat, 02 Oct 2021 16:58:47 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3715953.1633208613.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2021 17:03:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3715954.1633208613@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3715954.1633208613%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I haven't looked at the patch closely yet, but from a buildfarm POV I
> think the only thing that needs to be done is to inhibit the buildfarm
> client module if the TAP tests are present. The buildfarm code that runs
> TAP tests should automatically detect and run the new test.

> I've just counted and there are 116 animals reporting check-pg_upgrade,
> so we'd better put that out pronto. It's a little early but I'll try to
> push out a release containing code for it on Monday or Tuesday (it's a
> one line addition).

IIUC, the only problem for a non-updated animal would be that it'd
run the test twice?  Or would it actually fail?  If the latter,
we'd need to sit on the patch rather longer.

			regards, tom lane