Re: last_archived_wal is not necessary the latest WAL file (was Re: pgsql: Add test case for an archive recovery corner case.)

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: last_archived_wal is not necessary the latest WAL file (was Re: pgsql: Add test case for an archive recovery corner case.)
Date: 2022-06-30 05:03:10
Message-ID: 20220630050310.GB2257984@rfd.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 07:32:08PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 12:04:57AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > One can adapt the test to the server behavior by having the test wait for the
> > archiver to start, as attached. This is sufficient to make check-world pass
> > with the above sleep in place. I think we should also modify the PostgresNode
> > archive_command to log a message. That lack of logging was a obstacle
> > upthread (as seen in commit 3279cef) and again here.
>
> ? qq{copy "%p" "$path\\\\%f"}
> - : qq{cp "%p" "$path/%f"};
> + : qq{echo >&2 "ARCHIVE_COMMAND %p"; cp "%p" "$path/%f"};
>
> This is a bit inelegant. Perhaps it would be better through a perl
> wrapper like cp_history_files?

I see it the other way. Replacing a 49-character compound command with a
wrapper script would gain no particular advantage, and it would give readers
of the test code one more file to open and understand.

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-06-30 15:04:05 pgsql: pgindent run prior to branching v15.
Previous Message noreply 2022-06-28 22:16:09 pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_15_BETA2 was created

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2022-06-30 05:08:08 Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes
Previous Message Nikolay Shaplov 2022-06-30 04:04:25 Re: [PATCH] minor reloption regression tests improvement