On 2 March 2016 at 05:46, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> I think we should change the existing psql method to be what you propose
> as psql_expert.  I don't see any advantage in keeping the old one.  Many
> of the existing uses of psql should become what you call psql_check; but
> we should probably call that psql_ok() instead, and also have a
> psql_fails() for src/test/recovery/t/001_stream_rep.pl (and others to
> come).

I agree and that's what I really wanted to do. I just didn't want to
produce a massive diff that renames the method across all of src/bin etc
too, since I thought that'd be harder to commit and might have backporting

If you think that's the way to go I'm very happy with that and will proceed.

> > +=item $node->backup_fs_hot(backup_name)
> > +
> > +Create a backup with a filesystem level copy in $node->backup_dir,
> > +including transaction logs. Archiving must be enabled as pg_start_backup
> > +and pg_stop_backup are used. This is not checked or enforced.
> Perhaps "WAL archiving or streaming must be enabled ..."

Good point, will do.

> I would rather have the patches be submitted with a reasonable
> approximation at indentation rather than submit a separate indent patch.

The reason I didn't do that is that the indenting in PostgresNode.pm is
already well out of whack and, TBH, I didn't want to rebase on top of a
perltidy'd version. I can bite the bullet and move the perltidy to the
start of the patch series then make sure each subsequent patch is tidy'd
but I'd want to be very sure you'd be OK to commit the perltidy of
PostgresNode.pm otherwise I'd have to rebase messily all over again...

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to