| From: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TAP test to cover "EndOfLogTLI != replayTLI" case |
| Date: | 2022-02-14 09:42:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAAJ_b94BpaGY_i15JCrx-dSc7CiR62Ub57ss-oxKr3n3JpEX2w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 3:07 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>
> On 28/01/2022 12:10, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:01 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >>
> >> After reading this patch and this thread, I have noticed that you are
> >> testing the same thing as Heikki here, patch 0001:
> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52bc9ccd-8591-431b-0086-15d9acf25a3f@iki.fi
> >>
> >> The patch sent on the other thread has a better description and shape,
> >> so perhaps we'd better drop what is posted here in favor of the other
> >> version. Thoughts?
> >
> > Yes, I do agree with you. Thanks for the comparison.
>
> Pushed the test from that other thread now. Thanks!
>
Thank you !
Regards,
Amul
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-02-14 09:42:45 | pgcrypto: Remove internal padding implementation |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2022-02-14 09:37:57 | Re: TAP test to cover "EndOfLogTLI != replayTLI" case |