Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions

From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions
Date: 2021-04-07 18:07:41
Message-ID: 20210407200741.4a502e2a@firost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:36:31 -0400
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:

> On 2021-Apr-07, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> > Yes, it would be much saner to make PostgresNode the factory class. Plus,
> > some more logic could be injected there to either auto-detect the version
> > (current behavior) or eg. use a given path to the binaries as Mark did in
> > its patch.
> I'm not sure what you mean about auto-detecting the version -- I assume
> we would auto-detect the version by calling pg_config from the
> configured path and parsing the binary, which is what Mark's patch is
> supposed to do already. So I don't see what the distinction between
> those two things is.

My version is currently calling pg_config without any knowledge about its
absolute path.

Mark's patch is able to take an explicit binary path:

my $a = PostgresNode->get_new_node('a', install_path => '/my/install/8.4');

> In order to avoid having an ever-growing plethora of 100-byte .pm files,
> we can put the version-specific classes in the same
> file, at the bottom, "class PostgresNode96; use parent PostgresNode10;"
> followed by the routines that are overridden for each version.


> > Let me know if it worth that I work on an official patch.
> Let's give it a try ...



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2021-04-07 18:12:11 Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-04-07 18:02:16 Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans