On 2023-01-13 Fr 19:33, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 05:20:41PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Over at [1] there was some discussion of moving knowledge of what's >> required to be fixed from old branch repos to be able to upgrade them >> into the core code, instead of having it reside in a buildfarm client >> module. > Is this instead of the idea for the buildfarm to use the same SQL script > as the TAP test (upgrade_adapt.sql) ? > > Discussed various places: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1575064.1615060...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > https://github.com/PGBuildFarm/client-code/pull/23 > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=0df9641d39057f431655b92b8a490b89c508a0b3 > | The long-term plan is to make the buildfarm code re-use this new SQL > | file, so as committers are able to fix any compatibility issues in the > | tests of pg_upgrade with a refresh of the core code, without having to > | poke at the buildfarm client. Note that this is only able to handle the > | main regression test suite, and that nothing is done yet for contrib > | modules yet (these have more issues like their database names). > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=9814ff550046f825b751803191b29a2fbbc79283 >
I didn't adopt the PR precisely because it didn't do enough, unlike the module I posted, which supports upgrades all the way from 9.2 forward, and for more databases than just regression. I frankly think this is a better approach. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com