From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Timing-sensitive case in src/test/recovery TAP tests |
Date: | 2017-08-10 06:08:36 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSp_SLQb2uU7am+sn4V3g1UKv8j3yZU385oAG1cG_BN9Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> I got the same thought, wondering as well if get_slot_xmins should be
>>>> renamed check_slot_xmins with the is() tests moved inside it as well.
>>>> Not sure if that's worth the API ugliness though.
>
>>> Mmm, doesn't seem like that's worth doing, but I'm half tempted to merge
>>> wait_slot_xmins into get_slot_xmins so you can't skip it ...
>
>> Let's do that please. Merging both was my first feeling when
>> refactoring this test upthread. Should I send a patch?
>
> Sure, have at it.
And here you go.
--
Michael
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
tap-simplify-repslot.patch | application/octet-stream | 6.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-08-10 06:23:04 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-08-10 05:49:45 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |