On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Yes. I'd prefer avoid a hardcoded sleep and have something that relies >>> on lookups of pg_stat_replication though, because there is no way to >>> be sure that a sleep will ever be stable on heavily loaded machines, >>> like the machines I am specialized in maintaining :) >>> It kills a bit the purpose on having checks on pg_stat_replication as >>> the validation tests are based on that, still I think that we had >>> better base those checks on a loop that has a timeout, something like >>> that in a subroutine: >>> What do you think? >> >> Look good to me. +1.
+1 from me. > And so here we go... + ok($test_passed, $msg); ISTM that this change prevents the test from outputting the difference of expected and actual results when the test fails. Which would make the diagnosis of the test failure more difficult, I'm afraid. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers