Re: Coverage improvements of src/bin/pg_basebackup and pg_receivewal --endpos

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Coverage improvements of src/bin/pg_basebackup and pg_receivewal --endpos
Date: 2017-09-12 12:34:43
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/11/17 18:21, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think a more robust way would be to parse
>>>, perhaps by a function in TestLib, so it can be reused
>>> in other tests. (Even more robust would be to write out an actual Perl
>>> file with configuration information somewhere, but maybe we don't need
>>> to go there yet.) Or maybe have the respective make variables exported
>>> when make check is called (could be included in the prove_check
>>> variable?). Anyway, some more pondering could lead to a more general
>>> solution.
>> There is always room for improvement,
> I interpret that as that you are not working on that right now, so I've
> closed this patch.

Indeed, I have no plans for that now. There are enough patches to look
at these days. My apologies for not making that clear.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-09-12 12:48:14 Re: Re: Improve OR conditions on joined columns (common star schema problem)
Previous Message Tatsuro Yamada 2017-09-12 12:20:41 Re: CLUSTER command progress monitor