Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Amir Rohan <amir(dot)rohan(at)zoho(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.
Date: 2015-12-02 04:04:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > - It would be nice to have command_ok and command_fails in PostgresNode
>> >   too; that would remove the need for setting $ENV{PGPORT} but it's
>> >   possible to run commands outside a node too, so we'd need duplicates,
>> >   which would be worse.
>> I am fine to let it the way your patch does it. There are already many changes.
> Idea: we can have a bare command_ok exported by TestLib just as
> currently, and instance method PostgresNode->command_ok that first sets
> local $ENV{PGPORT} and then calls the other one.

Hm. That would be cleaner and make the code more consistent. Now as
TestLib exports command_ok, command_like and command_fails, we would
get redefinition errors when compiling the code if those routines are
not named differently in PostgresNode. If you want to have the names
consistent, then I guess that the only way would be to remove those
routines from the export list of TestLib and call them directly as for
example TestLib::command_ok(). See for example the patch attached that
applies on top on your patch 2 that adds a set of routines in
PostgresNode with a slightly different name.

>> > Finally, I ran perltidy on all the files, which strangely changed stuff
>> > that I didn't expect it to change.  I wonder if this is related to the
>> > perltidy version.  Do you see further changes if you run perltidy on the
>> > patched tree?
>> shows some diffs, though it doesn't seem that this patch
>> should care about that. The rest is showing no diffs. And I have used
>> perltidy v20140711.
> Yes, the patch doesn't modify SimpleTee -- I just used "find" to indent
> perl files.  What I don't understand is why doesn't my perltidy run
> match what was in master currently.  It should be a no-op ...

Well I don't get it either :)
I did a run on top of your two patches and saw no differences.

Attachment: 20151202_taptests-3.patch
Description: application/x-patch (12.9 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kouhei KaigaiDate: 2015-12-02 05:04:39
Subject: Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual
Previous:From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHIDate: 2015-12-02 04:00:45
Subject: Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group