Re: Replication slot stats misgivings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: Replication slot stats misgivings
Date: 2021-05-12 04:29:03
Message-ID: 1035337.1620793743@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I agree with your analysis to remove that test. Attached patch has the
> changes for the same.

Is there any value in converting the test case into a TAP test that
could be more flexible about the expected output? I'm mainly wondering
whether there are any code paths that this test forces the server through,
which would otherwise lack coverage.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2021-05-12 04:42:20 Re: Replication slot stats misgivings
Previous Message vignesh C 2021-05-12 04:19:34 Re: Replication slot stats misgivings