Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > I found a minor issue with the new psql method while writing tests for > failover slots. Patch attached. Thanks, pushed. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 10 March 2016 at 09:53, Craig Ringer wrote: > > Thanks for pushing. > I found a minor issue with the new psql method while writing tests for failover slots. Patch attached. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 10 March 2016 at 05:30, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: > > > 004 allows filtering on RecursiveCopy by a predicate function. Needed for > > filesystem level backups (007). It could probably be squashed with 007 if > > desired. > > I pushed this after some

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > 007 adds PostgresNode support for hot and cold filesystem-level backups > using pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup, which will be required for some > coming tests and are useful by themselves. Finally, pushed this one after rebasing on top of the changes in the others. I

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > 004 allows filtering on RecursiveCopy by a predicate function. Needed for > filesystem level backups (007). It could probably be squashed with 007 if > desired. I pushed this after some tinkering: * filtering applies to all directory entries, not just files. So you can

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 4 March 2016 at 20:35, Craig Ringer wrote: > Fix attached. > > Apparently I need a "remind me if you see the word attach in an email" plugin. Sigh. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 4 March 2016 at 05:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Okay, so far I have pushed 0001 and 0002 squashed (commit 5bec1ad4648), > 0003 (commit 7d9a4301c08), 0005 and 0006 squashed (commit 2c83f435a3de). > In the last one I chose to rename your psql_check to safe_psql and >

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 4 March 2016 at 12:54, Michael Paquier wrote: > No objections from here as well for the feature itself. I am glad to > see interest in extending the current infrastructure, and just > wondering what kind of tests are going to show up. The tests themselves really

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 4 March 2016 at 05:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Patches 0004 and 0007 remain. > > For readers who're not following closely that's the filtering support for > RecursiveCopy and the support

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 4 March 2016 at 05:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Okay, so far I have pushed 0001 and 0002 squashed (commit 5bec1ad4648), > 0003 (commit 7d9a4301c08), 0005 and 0006 squashed (commit 2c83f435a3de). > In the last one I chose to rename your psql_check to safe_psql and >

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > The first three are simple fixes that should go in without fuss: > > 001 fixes the above 5.8.8 compat issue. > > 002 fixes another minor whoopsie, a syntax error in src/test/recovery/t/ > 003_recovery_targets.pl that never got noticed because exit codes are > ignored. >

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > On 3 March 2016 at 21:16, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > The rest are feature patches: > > > 004 allows filtering on RecursiveCopy by a predicate function. Needed for > > > filesystem level backups (007). It could probably be squashed with 007 if >

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 3 March 2016 at 21:16, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > The first three are simple fixes that should go in without fuss: > > > > 001 fixes the above 5.8.8 compat issue. > > 002 fixes another

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > The first three are simple fixes that should go in without fuss: > > 001 fixes the above 5.8.8 compat issue. > 002 fixes another minor whoopsie, a syntax error in > src/test/recovery/t/003_recovery_targets.pl that never

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 3 March 2016 at 13:23, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > On the Perl 5.8.8 test env I've set up now, per > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On the Perl 5.8.8 test env I've set up now, per > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/camsr+ygr6pu-guyp-ft98xwxasc9n6j-awzaqxvw_+p3rtc...@mail.gmail.com > > master currently fails with > >

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 3 March 2016 at 05:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Pushed it with that fix. I also added a further "data_" prefix, so it's > "data_${name}_" now. Hopefully this is less problematic than > yesterday's ... > > On the Perl 5.8.8 test env I've set up now, per

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > On 2 March 2016 at 07:07, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Craig Ringer wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > > > index 3d11cbb..8c13655 100644 > > > --- a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > > > +++

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

I wrote: > Can't use string ("Test::Builder") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use > at /usr/share/perl5/Test/Builder.pm line 1798. > The referenced line number is the end of the file, Oh, scratch that; I was looking at the wrong file. Actually, /usr/share/perl5/Test/Builder.pm has sub

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

I wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> Yes, that's the problem. Instead of using details(), summary() is >> enough actually. And it is enough to let caller know the failure when >> just one test has been found as not passing. See attached. > This one works for me on

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Michael Paquier writes: > Yes, that's the problem. Instead of using details(), summary() is > enough actually. And it is enough to let caller know the failure when > just one test has been found as not passing. See attached. This one works for me on RHEL6. Pushed;

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 2 March 2016 at 13:22, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I wrote: > >> > Can't use string ("Test::Builder") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" > in use at

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I wrote: >> > Can't use string ("Test::Builder") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in >> > use at /usr/share/perl5/Test/Builder.pm line 1798. >> >> > The referenced line number is the end of the

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Can't use string ("Test::Builder") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use > > at /usr/share/perl5/Test/Builder.pm line 1798. > > > The referenced line number is the end of the file, > > Oh, scratch that; I was looking at the wrong file. Actually, >

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer writes: > Really, really this time, the version in git that actually works, not a > format-patch'd version before I made a last fix. Sigh. I can't even blame > lack of coffee... Hmm, still doesn't work for me: make check-world dies with Can't use string

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> This upset buildfarm members running prehistoric Perl versions because >> is_passing was added after 5.8.8. > > Sir, RHEL6 is not prehistoric ... and this is failing on my server

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer writes: > This upset buildfarm members running prehistoric Perl versions because > is_passing was added after 5.8.8. Sir, RHEL6 is not prehistoric ... and this is failing on my server too. I'm not sure when "is_passing" was added, but it was later than 5.10.1.

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 2 March 2016 at 10:07, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 2 March 2016 at 05:46, Alvaro Herrera 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

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 2 March 2016 at 11:23, Craig Ringer wrote: > Really, this time. > Really, really this time, the version in git that actually works, not a format-patch'd version before I made a last fix. Sigh. I can't even blame lack of coffee... -- Craig Ringer

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 2 March 2016 at 11:22, Craig Ringer wrote: > 2016-03-02 6:57 GMT+08:00 Alvaro Herrera : > >> Just pushed 0006. >> >> > This upset buildfarm members running prehistoric Perl versions because > is_passing was added after 5.8.8. > > Fix attached.

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

2016-03-02 6:57 GMT+08:00 Alvaro Herrera : > Just pushed 0006. > > This upset buildfarm members running prehistoric Perl versions because is_passing was added after 5.8.8. Fix attached. I think I'm going to have to do an archaeology-grade Perl install, there's just too

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 2 March 2016 at 05:46, Alvaro Herrera 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

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 2 March 2016 at 07:07, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: > > > diff --git a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > > index 3d11cbb..8c13655 100644 > > --- a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > > +++ b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > > @@ -112,9 +112,11 @@

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > diff --git a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > index 3d11cbb..8c13655 100644 > --- a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > +++ b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > @@ -112,9 +112,11 @@ INIT > # > sub tempdir > { > + my ($prefix) = @_; > + $prefix = "tmp_test" if

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Just pushed 0006. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://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:

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > Hi all > > I've been working with the new TAP tests for recovery and have a number of > enhancements I'd like to make to the tooling to make writing tests easier > and nicer. I think we should change the existing psql method to be what you propose as psql_expert. I don't

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 1 March 2016 at 22:08, salvador fandino wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > >> >> Hi all >> >> I've been working with the new TAP tests for recovery and have a number >> of enhancements I'd like to make to the

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > Hi all > > I've been working with the new TAP tests for recovery and have a number of > enhancements I'd like to make to the tooling to make writing tests easier > and nicer. I've also included two improvements

[HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Hi all I've been working with the new TAP tests for recovery and have a number of enhancements I'd like to make to the tooling to make writing tests easier and nicer. I've also included two improvements proposed by Kyotaro HORIGUCHI in the prior thread about the now-committed TAP recovery tests.