From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. |
Date: | 2015-03-11 05:47:25 |
Message-ID: | 20150311054725.GB294547@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 08:19:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So I am planning to seriously focus soon on this stuff, basically
> using the TAP tests as base infrastructure for this regression test
> suite. First, does using the TAP tests sound fine?
Yes.
> On the top of my mind I got the following items that should be tested:
> - WAL replay: from archive, from stream
> - hot standby and read-only queries
> - node promotion
> - recovery targets and their interferences when multiple targets are
> specified (XID, name, timestamp, immediate)
> - timelines
> - recovery_target_action
> - recovery_min_apply_delay (check that WAL is fetch from a source at
> some correct interval, can use a special restore_command for that)
> - archive_cleanup_command (check that command is kicked at each restart point)
> - recovery_end_command (check that command is kicked at the end of recovery)
> - timeline jump of a standby after reconnecting to a promoted node
Those sound good. The TAP suites still lack support for any Windows target.
If you're inclined to fix that, it would be a great contribution. The more we
accrue tests before doing that, the harder it will be to dig out.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-03-11 05:52:48 | Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-03-11 05:40:40 | Re: moving from contrib to bin |