Re: dropdb --force

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:36 PM Juan José Santamaría Flecha
<juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 7:30 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:53:56AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > I have pushed the refactoring patch. In the second patch, I have a
>> > few more comments. I am not completely sure if it is a good idea to
>> > write a new test file 060_dropdb_force.pl when we already have an
>> > existing file 050_dropdb.pl for dropdb tests, but I think if we want
>> > to do that, then lets move existing test for dropdb '-f' from
>> > 050_dropdb.pl to new file and it might be better to name new file as
>> > 051_dropdb_force.pl. I see that in some other cases like vacuumdb and
>> > clusterdb, we have separate test files to cover a different kinds of
>> > scenarios, so it should be okay to have a new file for dropdb tests.
>>
>> Amit, as most of the patch set has been committed, would it make sense
>> to mark this entry as committed in the CF app?
>>
>
> Test 051_dropdb_force.pl is failing on Windows critters in the build farm, e.g:
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=drongo&dt=2019-11-29%2003%3A54%3A06
>

Attached patch includes the fix for the following failure in buildfarm:
Nov 28 09:00:01 # Failed test 'database foobar1 is used'
Nov 28 09:00:01 # at t/051_dropdb_force.pl line 71.
Nov 28 09:00:01 # got: '7380'
Nov 28 09:00:01 # expected: '7380
'
Nov 28 09:00:01 # aborting wait: program died

This test passes in most buildfarm environment, but it fails in few
windows environment randomly. The attached patch removes the query
which is not really needed for this test. Alternatively we could also
modify something like below as in PostgresNode.pm:
$pid =~ s/\r//g if $TestLib::windows_os;
I do not have an environment in which I could reproduce and I felt
this is not really needed as part of this testcase.

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com