Re: Server-side base backup: why superuser, not pg_write_server_files?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Server-side base backup: why superuser, not pg_write_server_files?
Date: 2022-02-02 19:47:40
Message-ID: 73199.1643831260@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>> On 2 Feb 2022, at 19:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> And one thing that concretely stinks about is the progress reporting
>> you get while the tests are running:
>>
>> t/010_pg_basebackup.pl ... 142/?
>>
>> That's definitely less informative than 142/330 or whatever.

> There is that. That's less informative, but only when looking at the tests
> while they are running. There is no difference once the tests has finished so
> CI runs etc are no less informative. This however is something to consider.

TBH I don't see that that's worth much. None of our tests run so long
that you'll be sitting there trying to estimate when it'll be done.
I'd rather have the benefit of not having to maintain the test counts.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2022-02-02 19:50:05 Re: Refactoring SSL tests
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2022-02-02 19:46:13 Re: [PATCH] Accept IP addresses in server certificate SANs