On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 04:19:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I'll get that done down to 10 to maximize its influence, then I'll
> move on with the buildfarm code and send a patch to plug this and
> reduce the dependencies between core and the buildfarm code.
Okay, I have checked this one
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:58:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + ver >= 905 AND ver <= 1300 AS oldpgversion_95_13,
> + ver >= 906 AND ver <= 1300 AS oldpgversion_96_13,
> + ver >= 906 AND ver <= 1000 AS oldpgversion_96_10,
> So here, we have the choice between conditions that play with
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:47:28PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I'm not sure if everything the buildfarm does is needed anymore, or if any of
> it could be removed now, rather than being implemented in test.sh.
+-- This file has a bunch of kludges needed for testing upgrades
across major
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:57:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Something funny about that on prion:
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prion=2021-11-18%2001%3A55%3A38
> Not sure what's going on there.
Yes, that was just some missing quoting in the aclitem of this new
table.
Michael Paquier writes:
> Okay. I have worked on 0001 to add the table to check after the
> binary compatibilities and applied it.
Something funny about that on prion:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prion=2021-11-18%2001%3A55%3A38
@@ -747,6 +747,8 @@
'{(2020-01-02
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 04:01:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 01:22:00PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > That may be good enough for test.sh, but if the kludges were moved to a .sql
> > script which was also run by the buildfarm (in stead of its hardcoded
> >
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:07:17AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> In general I'm in agreement with the direction here. If we can have a
> script that applies to back branches to make them suitable for upgrade
> testing instead of embedding this in the buildfarm client, so much the
> better.
Okay.
On 11/17/21 02:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> The oldest version tested by the buildfarm is 9.2, so we could ignore
> this part I guess?
>
> Andrew, what do you think about this part? Based on my read of this
> thread, there is an agreement that this approach makes the buildfarm
> code more
On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 01:22:00PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> That may be good enough for test.sh, but if the kludges were moved to a .sql
> script which was also run by the buildfarm (in stead of its hardcoded
> kludges), then
> it might be necessary to handle the additional stuff my patch
On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 01:22:00PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> That may be good enough for test.sh, but if the kludges were moved to a .sql
> script which was also run by the buildfarm (in stead of its hardcoded
> kludges), then
> it might be necessary to handle the additional stuff my patch
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 02:38:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 04:58:41PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I was looking at this CF entry, and what you are doing in 0004 to move
> > the tweaks from pg_upgrade's test.sh to a separate SQL script that
> > uses psql's
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 02:38:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> For now, attached is a patch to address the issues with test.sh that I
> am planning to backpatch. This fixes the facility on HEAD, while
> minimizing the diffs between the dumps. We could do more, like a
> s/PROCEDURE/FUNCTION/
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 04:58:41PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I was looking at this CF entry, and what you are doing in 0004 to move
> the tweaks from pg_upgrade's test.sh to a separate SQL script that
> uses psql's meta-commands like \if to check which version we are on is
> really
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 07:51:16PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> These are all "translated" from test.sh, so follow its logic.
> Maybe it should be improved, but that's separate from this patch - which is
> already doing a few unrelated things.
I was looking at this CF entry, and what you are
On 9/15/21 3:28 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 9/13/21 9:20 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 9/12/21 2:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> On 9/11/21 8:51 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
@Andrew: did you have any comment on this part ?
|Subject: buildfarm xversion diff
|Forking
On 9/13/21 9:20 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 9/12/21 2:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 9/11/21 8:51 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>> @Andrew: did you have any comment on this part ?
>>>
>>> |Subject: buildfarm xversion diff
>>> |Forking
>>>
On 9/12/21 2:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 9/11/21 8:51 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> @Andrew: did you have any comment on this part ?
>>
>> |Subject: buildfarm xversion diff
>> |Forking
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210328231433.gi15...@telsasoft.com
>> |
>> |I gave suggestion
On 9/11/21 8:51 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> @Andrew: did you have any comment on this part ?
>
> |Subject: buildfarm xversion diff
> |Forking
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210328231433.gi15...@telsasoft.com
> |
> |I gave suggestion how to reduce the "lines of diff" metric almost to
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 06:02:18PM +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 13:33 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 03:01:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > v4-0001 mostly teaches test.sh about specific changes that have to be
> > > made to historic versions of the
Jacob Champion writes:
> On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 13:33 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> I started this. I don't know if it's compatible with the buildfarm client,
>> but
>> I think any issues maybe can be avoided by using "IF EXISTS".
> Here are the differences I see on a first pass (without
On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 13:33 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 03:01:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > v4-0001 mostly teaches test.sh about specific changes that have to be
> > made to historic versions of the regression database to allow them
> > to be reloaded into current
On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 16:21 +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 13:33 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 03:01:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > v4-0001 mostly teaches test.sh about specific changes that have to be
> > > made to historic versions of the
On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 13:33 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 03:01:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > v4-0001 mostly teaches test.sh about specific changes that have to be
> > made to historic versions of the regression database to allow them
> > to be reloaded into current
On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 03:01:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On 2021-01-12 22:44, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> Cross version pg_upgrade is tested regularly in the buildfarm, but not
> >> using test.sh. Instead it uses the saved data repository from a previous
> >> run of
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 2021-01-12 22:44, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Cross version pg_upgrade is tested regularly in the buildfarm, but not
>> using test.sh. Instead it uses the saved data repository from a previous
>> run of the buildfarm client for the source branch, and tries to upgrade
>>
On 2021-01-12 22:44, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Cross version pg_upgrade is tested regularly in the buildfarm, but not
using test.sh. Instead it uses the saved data repository from a previous
run of the buildfarm client for the source branch, and tries to upgrade
that to the target branch.
Does it
On 1/12/21 12:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:27:53AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Uh, what exactly is missing from the beta checklist? I read the patch
>>> and commit message but don't understand it.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:27:53AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Uh, what exactly is missing from the beta checklist? I read the patch
> > and commit message but don't understand it.
>
> Did you try to use test.sh to upgrade from
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:13:52PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:28:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > I think these patches could use some in-place documentation of what they
> > > are
> > >
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:13:52PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:28:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I think these patches could use some in-place documentation of what they are
> > trying to achieve and how they do it. The required information is spread
> > over
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:28:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-27 20:07, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:22:23AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:02:48PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > I meant to notice if the binary format is
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:28:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-27 20:07, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > rebased on 6df7a9698bb036610c1e8c6d375e1be38cb26d5f
>
> I think these patches could use some in-place documentation of what they are
> trying to achieve and how they do it. The
On 2020-12-27 20:07, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:22:23AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:02:48PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
I meant to notice if the binary format is accidentally changed again, which was
what happened here:
7c15cef86 Base
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:22:23AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:02:48PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I meant to notice if the binary format is accidentally changed again, which
> > was
> > what happened here:
> > 7c15cef86 Base information_schema.sql_identifier
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:02:48PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I meant to notice if the binary format is accidentally changed again, which
> was
> what happened here:
> 7c15cef86 Base information_schema.sql_identifier domain on name, not varchar.
>
> I added a table to the regression tests so
I'm finally returning to this 14 month old thread:
(was: Re: BUG #16045: vacuum_db crash and illegal memory alloc after pg_upgrade
from PG11 to PG12)
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:07:25AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:41:18PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps
36 matches
Mail list logo
