Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqS3MEoAgbKVg=9id33Ufn8r2t4eT1ypn4LNhV4QL5cesA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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 animals have upgraded to a newer version of the buildfarm client which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?
-- 
Michael


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

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Vaishnavi Prabakaran
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Commits don't block for synchronous replication