Re: [HACKERS] pg_recvlogical tests
On 2014-05-15 18:52:45 -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > On 15-05-2014 18:09, Andres Freund wrote: > > I have some preliminary tests for the pg_recvlogical binary using the > > infrastructure Peter added. I am wondering if somebody has a good idea > > about how to make the tests more meaningful. Currently all that's tested > > are simple commands. Not the main functionality namely the actual > > streaming of changes. > > > Could you post your preliminary patch? It's not particularly interesting yet, but attached. > > I wonder if somebody has a great idea for cancelling pg_recvlogical > > after a while. Right now my best idea is to add a new > > --stop-after-messages parameter. Does anybody have a better idea? > > > pgbench uses two stop conditions: (i) number of transactions and (ii) > time. These could be applied to pg_recvlogical too. > > --transactions=NUM > --time=NUM Sounds too complicated for what I need it for. The former isn't easily implementable because pg_recvlogical doesn't know about transactions and the latter isn't that interesting for the tests because it'll have timing issues... > > If that's the way, would somebody object to tests and the parameter > > being added now? The potential harm seems pretty low and the additional > > tests would cover the walsender interface that's not covered by any > > tests right now... > > > beta is not the right time to add even a *minor* functionality. Let's do > it for 9.5. I am not interested in the feature iself at all. I am interested into adding more tests for new functionality that's currently not tested in an automated fassion. And I do think beta isn't a bad time for that. We didn't *have* the infrastructure for the tests of binaries until the end of the last CF, so I couldn't have added it during development. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services 030_pg_recvlogical.pl Description: Perl program -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] pg_recvlogical tests
On 15-05-2014 18:09, Andres Freund wrote: > I have some preliminary tests for the pg_recvlogical binary using the > infrastructure Peter added. I am wondering if somebody has a good idea > about how to make the tests more meaningful. Currently all that's tested > are simple commands. Not the main functionality namely the actual > streaming of changes. > Could you post your preliminary patch? > I wonder if somebody has a great idea for cancelling pg_recvlogical > after a while. Right now my best idea is to add a new > --stop-after-messages parameter. Does anybody have a better idea? > pgbench uses two stop conditions: (i) number of transactions and (ii) time. These could be applied to pg_recvlogical too. --transactions=NUM --time=NUM > If that's the way, would somebody object to tests and the parameter > being added now? The potential harm seems pretty low and the additional > tests would cover the walsender interface that's not covered by any > tests right now... > beta is not the right time to add even a *minor* functionality. Let's do it for 9.5. -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] pg_recvlogical tests
Hi, I have some preliminary tests for the pg_recvlogical binary using the infrastructure Peter added. I am wondering if somebody has a good idea about how to make the tests more meaningful. Currently all that's tested are simple commands. Not the main functionality namely the actual streaming of changes. I wonder if somebody has a great idea for cancelling pg_recvlogical after a while. Right now my best idea is to add a new --stop-after-messages parameter. Does anybody have a better idea? If that's the way, would somebody object to tests and the parameter being added now? The potential harm seems pretty low and the additional tests would cover the walsender interface that's not covered by any tests right now... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, 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
