| From: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Regression test PANICs with master-standby setup on same machine |
| Date: | 2019-04-24 16:42:57 |
| Message-ID: | CALfoeivMr8scHWaTuP=fo_EfpvhbZyRdytwXSma2Y-c-Ap3BgQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:25 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> The inability
> to reasonably test master/standby setups on a single machine is pretty
> jarring (yes, one can use basebackup tablespace maps - but that doesn't
> work well for new tablespaces).
+1 agree. Feature which can't be easily tested becomes hurdle for
development and this is one of them. For reference the bug reported in [1]
is hard to test and fix without having easy ability to setup master/standby
on same node. We discussed few ways to eliminate the issue in thread [2]
but I wasn't able to find a workable solution. It would be really helpful
to lift this testing limitation.
1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20190423.163949.36763221.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp#7fdeee86f3050df6315c04f5f6f93672
2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALfoeivGMTmCmSXRSWDf%3DujWS7L8QmoUoziv-A61f2R8DcmwiA%40mail.gmail.com#709b53c078ebe549cff2462c092a8f09
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-04-24 16:57:36 | Re: block-level incremental backup |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-04-24 16:30:12 | Re: Regression test PANICs with master-standby setup on same machine |