| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: buildfarm warnings |
| Date: | 2022-02-17 20:57:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaC7F2SB+02Oh07mvd0w2g3Fp18LgZp1=zGHU_DbRvH=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:51 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2022-02-17 15:22:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > OK, sounds good, thanks. I couldn't (and still can't) think of a good
> > way of testing the progress-reporting code either. I mean I guess if
> > you could convince pg_basebackup not to truncate the filenames, maybe
> > by convincing it that your terminal is as wide as your garage door,
> > then you could capture the output and do some tests against it. But I
> > feel like the test code would be two orders of magnitude larger than
> > the code it intends to exercise, and I'm not sure it would be entirely
> > robust, either.
>
> How about just running pg_basebackup with --progress in one or two of the
> tests? Of course that's not testing very much, but at least it verifies not
> crashing...
True. That would be easy enough.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-02-17 21:00:22 | Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-17 20:51:41 | Re: buildfarm warnings |