Hello,

At Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:47:53 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> 
wrote in <CAB7nPqQJqEMqY_caBh0=dPBxpmSfd6_Uf4HXSG=LgB1cNsZL=g...@mail.gmail.com>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > That's true, but we don't always have a perfectly comprehensive
> > test suite, consciously or unconsciously. The sentence was
> > inattentive but the "bug" was just the negative comparable to
> > "feature" in my mind. My point was the comparison between adding
> > a test for a corner-case and its cost. It must be added if the
> > fixed feature is fragile. It can be added it doesn't take a too
> > long time to finish.
> 
> I'd just add it to be honest. Taking backups from standbys, with or
> without the master being connected is a supported feature, and we want
> to follow-up to be sure that it does not in the future. Having now the
> infrastructure for more complex scenarios does not mean of course that
> we need to test everything and all kind of things, of course, but here
> the benefits are good compared to the cost that a single call of
> pg_basebackup has in the complete the test suite run.

Yes, totally agreed.

regards,

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center




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

Reply via email to