| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: buildfarm warnings |
| Date: | 2022-02-17 20:51:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20220217205141.ql5hsylkkc5rtlqm@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-02-17 15:22:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, sounds good, thanks. I couldn't (and still can't) think of a good
> way of testing the progress-reporting code either. I mean I guess if
> you could convince pg_basebackup not to truncate the filenames, maybe
> by convincing it that your terminal is as wide as your garage door,
> then you could capture the output and do some tests against it. But I
> feel like the test code would be two orders of magnitude larger than
> the code it intends to exercise, and I'm not sure it would be entirely
> robust, either.
How about just running pg_basebackup with --progress in one or two of the
tests? Of course that's not testing very much, but at least it verifies not
crashing...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-02-17 20:57:14 | Re: buildfarm warnings |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-17 20:46:27 | Re: killing perl2host |