Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Second, we are treating the regression databases as a suitable base for
> testing pg_upgrade. But they aren't designed for that, they are designed
> for completely different purposes, and we're really just using them out
> of laziness because they are something we happen to have on hand.
Yup, no doubt about that.
> Maybe we should develop a suitable purpose-designed upgrade database for
> testing. There are things that we have found in the past that caused
> issues we didn't detect because they weren't covered in the upgraded
> databases.
I'm not sure what a "purpose-designed upgrade database" would look like,
though. However, it does seem like the setup would only need to create a
bunch of objects (maybe some of them involving a create/alter sequence),
which means it could run a great deal faster than the current method of
running the core regression tests. And we could stop worrying about
whether the core tests leave an adequate set of objects behind. So yeah,
I'm on board with this if we can find someone who wants to do the
gruntwork.
regards, tom lane