On 1 June 2017 at 01:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> My main concern is how widely is the buildfarm going to test the new
>> test frameworks. If we backpatch PostgresNode-based tests to 9.2, are
>> buildfarm animals going to need to be reconfigured to use
>> --enable-tap-tests?
>
On 05/31/2017 07:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
Thoughts? Backpatch new TAP methods, etc, into back branches routinely?
[...]
When customers start to doubt that, then they
become reluctant to apply new minor versions in their entirety and ask
Tom, Alvaro,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > My main concern is how widely is the buildfarm going to test the new
> > test frameworks. If we backpatch PostgresNode-based tests to 9.2, are
> > buildfarm animals going to need to be reconfigured to use
> > --enab
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On the other hand, we tell our users that we only back-patch security
> and stability fixes.
Perhaps I missed where this changed, but my recollection is that we also
back-patch bug-fixes, and I don't think we should change that.
> When cus
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> My main concern is how widely is the buildfarm going to test the new
> test frameworks. If we backpatch PostgresNode-based tests to 9.2, are
> buildfarm animals going to need to be reconfigured to use
> --enable-tap-tests?
Yes. The animals that are doing it at all are u
On 05/30/2017 09:52 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Tom,
Um ... but we still have 2 live pre-9.4 branches. If your proposal
doesn't extend to back-porting all of this stuff as far as 9.2,
I don't see what this is really buying. We'd still need version cutoff
checks in the tests.
I don't believe t
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Thoughts? Backpatch new TAP methods, etc, into back branches routinely?
>
> So, on the one hand, it is certainly useful to be able to commit tests
> to back-branches as well as to master, and it's hard to do that if the
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Thoughts? Backpatch new TAP methods, etc, into back branches routinely?
So, on the one hand, it is certainly useful to be able to commit tests
to back-branches as well as to master, and it's hard to do that if the
infrastructure isn't there.
Tom,
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 01:16 Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > In the end, the experiences I've had with pg_dump of late and trying to
> > ensure that pg_dump 9.6 is able to work all the way back to *7.0*, makes
> > me think that this notion of putting the one-and-only real test
Stephen Frost writes:
> In the end, the experiences I've had with pg_dump of late and trying to
> ensure that pg_dump 9.6 is able to work all the way back to *7.0*, makes
> me think that this notion of putting the one-and-only real test-suite we
> have into the core repo almost laughable.
um... w
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >> At the moment that'd be 9.5, since that's where PostgresNode was
> >> introduced. But if I can find the time I'd quite like to backport
> >> PostgresNode to 9.4 too.
>
> > M
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> At the moment that'd be 9.5, since that's where PostgresNode was
>> introduced. But if I can find the time I'd quite like to backport
>> PostgresNode to 9.4 too.
> Makes sense to me.
Um ... but we still have 2 live pre-9.4
Craig,
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> I propose that we backpatch all practical TAP enhancements back to the
> last supported back branch.
Thanks for bringing this up. I tend to agree, as we really want to have
better testing of PostgreSQL in all of our branches and being able t
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Thoughts? Backpatch new TAP methods, etc, into back branches routinely?
FWIW, I'd love to see a committer helping into getting this facility
back-patched at least to 9.5. The least I can do is a commitment as a
reviewer of such a patch. So co
Hi all
I propose that we backpatch all practical TAP enhancements back to the
last supported back branch.
At the moment that'd be 9.5, since that's where PostgresNode was
introduced. But if I can find the time I'd quite like to backport
PostgresNode to 9.4 too.
Where needed, PostgresNode could h
15 matches
Mail list logo
