On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:57 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > True. That would be easy enough.
I played around with this a bit, and of course it is easy enough to add --progress with or without --verbose to a few tests, but when I reverted 62cb7427d1e491faf8612a82c2e3711a8cd65422 it didn't make any tests fail. So then I tried sticking --progress --verbose into @pg_basebackup_defs so all the tests would run with it, and that did make some tests fail, but the same ones fail with and without the patch. So it doesn't seem like we would have caught this particular problem via this testing method no matter what we did in detail. If we just want to splatter a few --progress switches around for the heck of it, we could do something like the attached. But I don't know if this is best: it seems highly arguable what to do in detail (and also not worth arguing about, so if someone else feels motivated to do something different than this, or the same as this, fine by me). -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
splatter-some-progress.patch
Description: Binary data
