From: | Kirill Gavrilov <diphantxm(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Truncate logs by max_log_size |
Date: | 2024-11-30 08:44:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+E0NR7xYFtHpfnySWrA+CLA8t2sWy4w3XQA7LRXPALZHWgYvg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> Hi
>
> > +for (my $attempts = 0; $attempts < $max_attempts; $attempts++)
> > +{
> > + eval {
> > + $current_logfiles = slurp_file($node->data_dir . '/current_logfiles');
> > + };
> > + last unless $@;
> > + usleep(100_000);
> > +}
>
>
> `usleep` in tap tests is usually a bad pattern. Do we have a chance to
> test this using `wait_for_log` or similar?
>
I'm not sure we can use `wait_for_log` because it checks for only one
logfile. But even if it's possible, I don't think it's a good idea to use
different checks in the same file or to change tests for another feature. I
used test case from above as an example for mine.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Banck | 2024-11-30 11:41:15 | [patch] Make "invalid record length at <LSN>: expected at least 24, got 0" message less scary |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-11-30 08:28:31 | Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~) |