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

> > 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.

OK, please do.

We can split this up in two patches: one introducing PostgresNode
(+ RecursiveCopy) together with the refactoring of existing test code,
and a subsequent one introducing RecoveryTest and the corresponding
subdir.  Sounds good?

> > > 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
> flexible.

That works for me.

Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to