Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-08-30 at 16:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So I think that as given, this script is only useful for testing
> > pg_upgrade of $currentversion to $currentversion. Which is surely
> > better than no test at all, but it would not for example have caught
> > the 8.3 incompatibility that was just reported.
>
> Well, the goal was always current to current version. Cross-version
> testing is obviously important, but will be quite a bit harder.
>
> > How can we improve things here? I've toyed with the idea of
> > installing pg_regress.so so that we can refer to it relative to
> > $libdir, but that might be a bit invasive, especially if we were to
> > try to back-patch it as far as 8.3.
>
> Aside from hesitations to backpatch those sorts of changes, it would
> effectively prevent us from ever removing anything from the C libraries
> used in the regression tests, because we need to keep the symbols around
> so that the schema dump can load successfully into the new instance.
>
> I think a solution would have to be one of:
>
> 1) pg_upgrade needs a mode to cope with these situations. It can tell
> the user, I upgraded your installation, but some dynamic modules appear
> to be missing, you need to sort that out before you can put this back
> into use.
>
> 2) Design a different test schema to load into the database before
> running pg_upgrade. This would then be a one-line change in the script.
Here are the scripts I use for testing:
http://momjian.us/expire/pg_upgrade_test.tgz
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +