Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Attached are rebased patches, split into 3 parts doing the following: >> - 0001, fix default configuration of MSVC builds ignoring TAP tests > > BTW you keep submitting this one and I

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Michael Paquier wrote: >> >>> 9) I have no logical explanation to explain why I am seeing all those >>> things now. >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: > >> 9) I have no logical explanation to explain why I am seeing all those >> things now. > > Happens all the time ... > > Pushed, thanks. Thanks. I am going to patch by buildfarm scripts to

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

Michael Paquier wrote: > 9) I have no logical explanation to explain why I am seeing all those > things now. Happens all the time ... Pushed, thanks. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > The buildfarm does not have infrastructure to test that yet.. I need > to craft a patch for the client-side code and send it to Andrew. Will > try to do so today. For those interested, here is where things are

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 27 February 2016 at 06:37, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >> > Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> Should be

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On 27 February 2016 at 06:37, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Craig Ringer wrote: > >> Should be committed ASAP IMO. > > > > Finally pushed it. Let's see how it does in the buildfarm.

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Date of first message of this thread: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:40:41 +0900 >> Date of this message: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:30:08 -0300 >> This has been a long

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Date of first message of this thread: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:40:41 +0900 > Date of this message: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:30:08 -0300 > This has been a long trip. Thanks a lot to all involved. Many people > have reviewed and helped out with this

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: >> Should be committed ASAP IMO. > > Finally pushed it. Let's see how it does in the buildfarm. Now let's > get going and add more tests, I know there's no shortage of people with > test

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

Craig Ringer wrote: > Should be committed ASAP IMO. Finally pushed it. Let's see how it does in the buildfarm. Now let's get going and add more tests, I know there's no shortage of people with test scripts waiting for this. Thanks, Michael, for the persistency, and thanks to all reviewers.

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

Michael Paquier wrote: > Attached are rebased patches, split into 3 parts doing the following: > - 0001, fix default configuration of MSVC builds ignoring TAP tests BTW you keep submitting this one and I keep ignoring it. I think you should start a separate thread for this one, so that some

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

Victor Wagner wrote: > I'll second Stas' suggestion about psql_ok/psql_fail functions. > > 1. psql_ok instead of just psql would provide visual feedback for the > reader of code. One would see 'here condition is tested, here is > something ended with _ok/_fail'. > > It would be nice that seeing

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On 26 February 2016 at 13:43, Michael Paquier wrote: > > my $caughtup_query = "SELECT '$current_lsn'::pg_lsn <= > > pg_last_xlog_replay_location()"; > > use > > my $caughtup_query = "SELECT pg_xlog_location_diff('$current_lsn', > > pg_last_xlog_replay_location()) <=

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 26 February 2016 at 10:58, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Here is a rebased set after the conflicts created by e640093, with the >> following changes: > > Thanks for rebasing on top of that.

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On 26 February 2016 at 10:58, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Here is a rebased set after the conflicts created by e640093, with the > following changes: > Thanks for rebasing on top of that. Not totally fair when your patch came first, but I guess it was simpler to merge

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Thanks for your enthusiasm. Now, to do an auto-critic of my patch: >> + if ($params{allows_streaming}) >> + { >> + print $conf

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Thanks for your enthusiasm. Now, to do an auto-critic of my patch: > + if ($params{allows_streaming}) > + { > + print $conf "wal_level = hot_standby\n"; > + print $conf "max_wal_senders = 5\n"; > +

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Victor Wagner wrote: > It's quite good that patch sets standard of using 'use strict; use > warnings;' in the test script. FWIW, this is decided as being a standard rule for any modules/script added in the main tree. > It is bad, that Postgres-specific perl

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

This patch adds a long-awaited functionality to the PostgreSQL test suite - testing of cluster configuration. It contains bare minimum of replication and recovery test, but it should be a good starting point for other people. Really, adding a much more tests for replication and recovery is