Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:39:59 +0900, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <cab7npqtv5gmkqcndofgtgqoqxz2xlz4rrw247oqojzztvy6...@mail.gmail.com>
> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > Indeed, and you could just do the following to reproduce the failure
> > with the recovery test suite, so I would suggest adding this test in
> > the patch:
> > --- a/src/test/recovery/t/001_stream_rep.pl
> > +++ b/src/test/recovery/t/001_stream_rep.pl
> > @@ -24,6 +24,11 @@ $node_standby_1->start;
> > # pg_basebackup works on a standby).
> > $node_standby_1->backup($backup_name);
> >
> > +# Take a second backup of the standby while the master is offline.
> > +$node_master->stop;
> > +$node_standby_1->backup('my_backup_2');
> > +$node_master->start;
>
> I'm not sure that adding the test case for a particular bug like
> this is appropriate. But it would be acceptable because it
> doesn't take long time and it is separate from standard checks.
The reason this test is appropiate is that it's testing a feature we
want to support, namely that taking a backup from a standby works even
when the master is stopped. It's not a test for this particular bug,
even though the feature doesn't work because of this bug.
--
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
