On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 09:14:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps the buildfarm will prove me wrong, but I think we don't
> have to do anything. And if we did want to do something, what
> would it be? There is no feedback mechanism to let us observe
> when the worker processed the signal.
I am fine to do nothing here unless the buildfarm says something.
> Oh, I see, you wonder if there could already be entries like these
> in the file. But since we only turned the log level up for the
> duration of the specific test, it doesn't seem like a problem.
That's not a problem, now.
> (I did think of this to the extent of making sure the second test
> group in 013_partition.pl looks for different messages than the
> first group does.)
Still, the current style is not a pattern I think we should spread
around, as a lot of copy-paste gets done in new tests added and one
would easily mix up queries with pattern checks. The practice I'd
like to encourage is something like the attached, to make clear that
there is no risk to fetch incorrect logs.
--
Michael