Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> This whole discussion leads me to the conclusion that we need to look
> more imaginatively at our testing regime. When the buildfarm was created
> it (via pg_regress) covered a lot of what we needed to test, but that is
> becoming less and less true. Not only does pg_upgrade need testing but
> we need to devise some sort of automated testing regime for SR and HS,
> among other things. pg_regress is showing it's age a bit, I think.
The regression tests have never pretended to test more than a fraction
of what might be interesting to test. Crash recovery, in particular,
has always been interesting and has never been tested in any mechanized
way. They don't really exercise concurrent behavior in any meaningful
way either. I don't think they're "showing their age" so much as we're
starting to get more ambitious about what we would like to have routine
testing for.
regards, tom lane