| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(dot)taveira(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Log message for GSS connection is missing once connection authorization is successful. |
| Date: | 2021-03-21 14:35:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20210321143459.GE20766@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 05:37:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > It seems to me that this would make the tests faster, that the test
> > would not need to wait for the logging collector and that the code
> > could just use slurp_file($node->logfile) to get the data it wants to
> > check for a given pattern without looking at current_logfiles. I also
> > think that not using truncate() on the logfile generated has the
> > disadvantage to make the code fuzzy for its verification once we
> > introduce patterns close to each other, as there could easily be an
> > overlap. That's one problem that SQL pattern checks had to deal with
> > in the past. Thoughts?
>
> And, in terms of code, this really simplifies things. Please see the
> attached that I would like to apply.
Agreed, that does look better/simpler.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-03-21 14:40:37 | Re: invalid data in file backup_label problem on windows |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-03-21 14:30:04 | Re: support for MERGE |