Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test
Date: 2023-06-06 04:06:33
Message-ID: ZH6wybg4hI6nHc6R@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Personally, I don't see any problem to do this refactoring for v16.
> However, sometimes, we do decide to backpatch refactoring in tests to
> avoid backpatch effort. I am not completely sure if that is the case
> here.

033_replay_tsp_drops.pl has one find_in_log() down to 11, and
019_replslot_limit.pl has four calls down to 14. Making things
consistent everywhere is a rather appealing argument to ease future
backpatching. So I am OK to spend a few extra cycles in adjusting
these routines all the way down where needed. I'll do that tomorrow
once I get back in front of my laptop.

Note that connect_ok() and connect_fails() are new to 14, so this
part has no need to go further down than that.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Pyhalov 2023-06-06 04:19:01 Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
Previous Message Richard Guo 2023-06-06 03:20:26 Re: postgres_fdw: wrong results with self join + enable_nestloop off