| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird test mixup |
| Date: | 2024-03-14 23:08:27 |
| Message-ID: | ZfODa8Q6HhpyA_vc@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 07:53:57AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It can be made optional by extending InjectionPointAttach() to
> specify a database OID or a database name. Note that
> 041_checkpoint_at_promote.pl wants an injection point to run in the
> checkpointer, where we don't have a database requirement.
Slight correction here. It is also possible to not touch
InjectionPointAttach() at all: just tweak the callbacks to do that as
long as the database that should be used is tracked in shmem with its
point name, say with new fields in InjectionPointSharedState. That
keeps the backend APIs in a cleaner state.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-14 23:13:53 | Re: Weird test mixup |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-03-14 22:59:41 | Re: Fix the synopsis of pg_md5_hash |