Re: [PATCH] Fix loose polling in 019_replslot_limit.pl test

From: Zakariyah Ali <zakariyahali100(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix loose polling in 019_replslot_limit.pl test
Date: 2026-06-19 13:52:57
Message-ID: 20260619135257.158592-1-zakariyahali100@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Kyotaro,

Thank you for the review and the helpful feedback.

You are absolutely right that I should have included the motivation. The original intent was to reduce code duplication and use the existing `wait_for_log()` helper for better consistency in the test suite.

I understand your concern about not touching functioning test code without a strong functional reason. Also, I agree with your point about inconsistency, leaving some tests using `wait_for_log()` while others (like `033_replay_tsp_drops.pl`) use open-coded log searches makes the codebase less uniform.

To address this, I've decided to take the broader approach. I am currently reviewing the rest of the test suite to find similar open-coded usages. I will prepare and submit a v2 patch that standardizes all these instances to use `wait_for_log()` together.

Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. I'll follow up with the updated patch shortly.

Best Regards,
Zakariyah Ali.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2026-06-19 13:59:03 Include sequences in publications created by pg_createsubscriber
Previous Message Robert Haas 2026-06-19 13:45:18 Re: use of SPI by postgresImportForeignStatistics