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: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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: 2015-12-12 11:29:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:34:34PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Michael Paquier wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> >> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> I guess that to complete your idea we could allow PostgresNode to get
>> >> a custom name for its log file through an optional parameter like
>> >> logfile => 'myname' or similar. And if nothing is defined, process
>> >> falls back to applname. So this would give the following:
>> >> ${testname}_${logfile}.log
>> >
>> > Sure. I don't think we should the name only for the log file, though,
>> > but also for things like the "## " informative messages we print here
>> > and there.  That would make the log file simpler to follow.  Also, I'm
>> > not sure about having it be optional.  (TBH I'm not sure about applname
>> > either; why do we keep that one?)
>> OK, so let's do this: the node name is a mandatory argument of
>> get_new_node, which is passed to "new PostgresNode" like the port and
>> the host, and it is then used in the log file name as well as in the
>> information messages you are mentioning. That's a patch simple enough.
>> Are you fine with this approach?
> Sounds reasonable so far.

OK, done so.

>> Regarding the application name, I still think it is useful to have it
>> though. pg_rewind should actually use it, and the other patch adding
>> the recovery routines will use it.
> Using the application_name connection parameter is fine, but I can't think of
> a reason to set it to "node_".$node->port instead of $node->name.  And I can't
> think of a use for the $node->applname field once you have $node->name.  What
> use case would benefit?

I have the applname stuff, and updated the log messages to use the
node name for clarity.

The patch to address those points is attached.

Attachment: 20151212_tap_node_name.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream (11.7 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael PaquierDate: 2015-12-12 11:49:52
Subject: Re: Error with index on unlogged table
Previous:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2015-12-12 11:13:12
Subject: Re: Disabling an index temporarily

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