Stephen Frost wrote: > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > More generally, though, I wonder how we can have some test coverage > > > on such cases going forward. Is the patch below too ugly to commit > > > permanently, and if so, what other idea can you suggest? > > > > I suggest a buildfarm animal running a custom buildfarm module that > > exercises the pg_upgrade test from every supported version to the latest > > stable and to master -- together with your proposed case that leaves a > > toastless table around for pg_upgrade to handle. > > That would help greatly with pg_dump test coverage as well.. One of the > problems of trying to get good LOC coverage of pg_dump is that a *lot* > of the code is version-specific...
If we can put together a script that runs test.sh for various versions and then verifies the runs, we could use it in both buildfarm and coverage. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
