Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> + return wantarray ? ($stdout, $stderr) : $stdout;
> So you are willing to extend that so as you could perform conparison
> tests on the error strings returned. Why no, it looks useful, though
> now there is no test in need of it I think. So without a proper need I
> think that we could live without.
Does this change let us implement psql_ok and psql_fail? I think I've
seen a few places already, both in committed code and in submitted
patches, that test for some kind of failure from psql.
> > 0002-Prefix-test-numbers-to-node-
> >
> > This is rather a example usage of 0001- patch (except for
> > stderr stuff). 00n_xxx test leaves temporary directories with
> > the names of 00n_(master|standby)_XXXX on failure. If this is
> > considered reasonable, I'll make same patches for the other
> > /t/nnn_*.pl tests.
>
> -my $node_master = get_new_node('master');
> +my $node_master = get_new_node('001_master');
> I am not a fan of appending the test number in the node name. For one,
> this complicates the log file name associated with a node by
> duplicating the test number in its name. Also, it is possible to
> easily get the name of the data folder for a node by looking at the
> logs.
Why don't we use something similar to what's in $test_logfile in
TestLib?
> Also, it is possible to easily get the name of the data folder for a
> node by looking at the logs.
No disagreement on it being possible, but "easily" seems a bad
description for that.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services