Re: pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_file_settings view vs. Windows
Date: 2015-07-02 04:10:16
Message-ID: 20150702041016.GA821234@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 07:20:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> >> I noticed that in EXEC_BACKEND builds (ie, Windows) the pg_file_settings
> >> view doesn't act as its author presumably intended. Specifically, it
> >> reads as empty until/unless the current session processes a SIGHUP event.
>
> > I'm just wondering why we did not catch this earlier. If this is
> > because threre's no regression test case for pg_file_settings view,
>
> Yeah, exactly. Unfortunately I see no way to add a useful test, at least
> not one that will work in installcheck mode. There's no way to predict
> what will be in the view in that case. Even for "make check", the output
> would be pretty darn environment-dependent.

A TAP test case is the way to test this thoroughly. It could feed any number
of specific postgresql.conf variations to a postmaster. See
src/bin/pg_ctl/t/002_status.pl for a test doing something similar. (Granted,
I would not have thought to write such a test for this feature.)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2015-07-02 05:06:38 Re: WAL-related tools and .paritial WAL file
Previous Message Noah Misch 2015-07-02 03:32:23 Re: Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?)