On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>

> Michael Paquier wrote:
> > - Manage node information using package/class PostgresNode.pm and have
> > RecoveryTest use it. I have actually made PostgresNode bare-bone and
> simple
> > on purpose: one can initialize the node, append configuration parameters
> to
> > it and manage it through start/stop/restart (we may want to add reload
> and
> > promote actually if needed).
> This looks great as a starting point.  I think we should make TestLib
> depend on PostgresNode instead of the other way around.  I will have a
> look at that (I realize this means messing with the existing tests).

Makes sense. My thoughts following that is that we should keep a track of
the nodes started as an array which is part of TestLib, with PGHOST set
once at startup using tempdir_short. That's surely an refactoring patch
somewhat independent of the recovery test suite. I would not mind writing
something among those lines if needed.

> > I have also arrived at the conclusion that it is not really worth
> > adding a node status flag in PostgresNode because the port number
> > saved there is sufficient when doing free port lookup, and the list of
> > nodes used in a recovery test are saved in an array.
> I don't disagree with this in principle, but I think the design that you
> get a new PostgresNode object by calling get_free_port is strange.  I
> think the port lookup code should be part of either TestLib or
> PostgresNode, not RecoveryTest.

I'd vote for TestLib. I have written PostgresNode this way to allow users
to set up arbitrary port numbers if they'd like to do so. That's more

Reply via email to