Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums
| От | Andrew Dunstan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | d38afe14-dc13-1e94-7adf-449c330a6fcb@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/19/2018 05:32 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > As you pointed out previously, the current code *doesn't* work, before > or after this change, and we clearly need to rework this to move things > into libpgcommon and also fix pg_basebackup. Reverting this would at > least get us back to having similar code between this and pg_basebackup, > and then it'll be cleaner and clearer to have one patch which moves that > similar logic into libpgcommon and fixes the missing exceptions for the > EXEC_BACKEND case. > > Keeping the patch doesn't do anything for the pg_basebackup case, and > confuses the issue by having these filename-pattern-whitelists which > weren't there before and that should be removed, imv. > I don't think just reverting it is really acceptable. The patch was a response to buildfarm breakage, and moreover was published and discussed before it was applied. If you don't like it I think you need to publish a better solution that will not involve reintroducing the buildfarm error. I don't have a strong opinion about the mechanism. The current conversation does seem to me to be generating more heat than light, TBH. But I do have a strong opinion about not having to enable/disable the TAP test in question constantly. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: