On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 00:16, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-08-23 10:10:31 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > > On 23 Aug 2023, at 03:17, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > On 2023-08-22 23:47:24 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >
> > >> My only small gripe is that I keep thinking about template databases for CREATE
> > >> DATABASE when reading the error messages in this patch, which is clearly not
> > >> related to what this does.
> > >>
> > >> + note("initializing database system by copying initdb template");
> > >>
> > >> I personally would've used cache instead of template in the user facing parts
> > >> to keep concepts separated, but thats personal taste.
> > >
> > > I am going back and forth on that one (as one can notice with $subject). It
> > > doesn't quite seem like a cache, as it's not "created" on demand and only
> > > usable when the exactly same parameters are used repeatedly. But template is
> > > overloaded as you say...
> >
> > That's a fair point, cache is not a good word to describe a stored copy of
> > something prefabricated. Let's go with template, we can always refine in-tree
> > if a better wording comes along.
>
> Cool. Pushed that way. Only change I made is to redirect the output of cp
> (and/or robocopy) in pg_regress, similar to how that was done for initdb
> proper.
While working on some things that are prone to breaking initdb, I
noticed that this template isn't generated with --no-clean, while
pg_regress does do that. This meant `make check` didn't have any
meaningful debuggable output when I broke the processes in initdb,
which is undesirable.
Attached a patch that fixes this for both make and meson, by adding
--no-clean to the initdb template.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Neon (https://neon.tech)