| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes |
| Date: | 2016-02-18 13:08:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQn3=T69RDBSMwn9UYLjLdJe+1p+jaOz-o1z9tLG-x8hQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That lets you make assertions about replication behaviour. It was built for
> BDR and I think we'll need something along those lines in core if/when any
> kind of logical replication facilities land, for things like testing
> failover slots, etc.
>
> The patch is at:
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=2ndquadrant_bdr.git;a=commit;h=d859de3b13d39d4eddd91f3e6f316a48d31ee0fe
>
> and might be something it's worth having in core as we expand testing of
> replication, failover, etc.
Maybe there is an advantage to have it, but that's hard to make an
opinion without a complicated test case. Both of those things could
clearly work with each other at first sight. PostgresNode can set up a
set of nodes and this patch would be in charge of more complex
scenarios where the same connection or transaction block is needed.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2016-02-18 13:11:05 | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-02-18 12:51:32 | Re: JDBC behaviour |