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
