From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, amir(dot)rohan(at)zoho(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. |
Date: | 2016-02-26 18:43:14 |
Message-ID: | 20160226184314.GA205945@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> So, I'd like to propose four (or five) changes to this harness.
>
> - prove_check to remove all in tmp_check
>
> - TestLib to preserve temporary directories/files if the current
> test fails.
>
> - PostgresNode::get_new_node to create data directory with
> meaningful basenames.
>
> - PostgresNode::psql to return a list of ($stdout, $stderr) if
> requested. (The previous behavior is not changed)
>
> - (recovery/t/00x_* gives test number to node name)
>
> As a POC, the attached diff will appliy on the 0001 and (fixed)
> 0003 patches.
These changes all seem very reasonable to me. I'm not so sure about the
last one. Perhaps the framework ought to generate an appropriate subdir
name using the test file name plus the node name, so that instead of
tmp_XXXX it becomes tmp_001_master_XXXX or something like that? Having
be a coding convention doesn't look real nice to me.
I didn't try to apply your patch but I'm fairly certain it would
conflict with what's here now; can you please rebase and resend?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2016-02-26 18:58:31 | Re: [PATCH] fix DROP OPERATOR to reset links to itself on commutator and negator |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-02-26 18:30:29 | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |