Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby
Date: 2010-05-01 16:37:25
Message-ID: 4434.1272731845@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 09:05 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> maybe we should be using the tables that exists in the regression
>> database or adding hs_setup_primary in installcheck to prepare the
>> regression database to run standbycheck in the standby server

> That's part of the procedure already.

Where is this test procedure documented?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-05-01 16:56:31 Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-05-01 16:06:01 Re: Protecting against case where shmget says EINVAL instead of EEXIST