Re: refactor subscription tests to use PostgresNode's wait_for_catchup

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: refactor subscription tests to use PostgresNode's wait_for_catchup
Date: 2018-01-11 18:41:27
Message-ID: 553d2c9e-9b94-80c7-d34d-524fe959d089@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/10/18 22:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:45:56PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 1/8/18 23:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Should we just remove it? Apparently, it was never functional to begin
>> with. Otherwise, we'd have to write a second query to return the value
>> to print. wait_for_slot_catchup has the same issue. Seems like a lot
>> of overhead for something that has never been used.

committed

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-01-11 18:45:06 Re: IndexTupleDSize macro seems redundant
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-01-11 18:37:05 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting