From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: multi-install PostgresNode |
Date: | 2021-03-23 23:09:43 |
Message-ID: | 412d2cac-b2fc-fe3e-5e53-6af18bedc6cd@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/23/21 6:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:19:57AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> +BEGIN
>> +{
>> +
>> + # putting this in a BEGIN block means it's run and checked by perl -c
>> +
>> +
>> + # everything other than info and get_new_node that we need to override.
>> + # they are all instance methods, so we can use the same template for all.
>> + my @instance_overrides = qw(init backup start kill9 stop reload restart
>> + promote logrotate safe_psql psql background_psql
>> + interactive_psql poll_query_until command_ok
>> + command_fails command_like command_checks_all
>> + issues_sql_like run_log pg_recvlogical_upto
>> + );
> No actual objections here, but it would be easy to miss the addition
> of a new routine. Would an exclusion filter be more adapted, aka
> override everything except get_new_node() and info()?
Actually, following a brief offline discussion today I've thought of a
way that doesn't require subclassing. Will post that probably tomorrow.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-03-23 23:13:22 | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application |
Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-03-23 22:52:32 | Re: Change default of checkpoint_completion_target |