Thanks to look this! At Fri, 4 Mar 2022 13:51:12 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote i n > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 09:10:48AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > And same function contained a maybe-should-have-been-removed line > > which makes Windows build unhappy. > > > > This should make all platforms in the CI happy. > > d6d317d as solved the issue of tablespace paths across multiple nodes > with the new GUC called allow_in_place_tablespaces, and is getting > successfully used in the recovery tests as of 027_stream_regress.pl.
The feature allows only one tablespace directory. but that uses (I'm not sure it needs, though) multiple tablespace directories so I think the feature doesn't work for the test. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't use tablespaces. I see that in 002_tablespace.pl but but the test uses only one tablespace location. > Shouldn't we rely on that rather than extending more our test perl > modules? One tricky part is the emulation of readlink for junction > points on Windows (dir_readlink in your patch), and the root of the Yeah, I don't like that as I said before... > problem is that 0003 cares about the path structure of the > tablespaces so we have no need, as far as I can see, for any > dependency with link follow-up in the scope of this patch. I'm not sure how this related to 0001 but maybe I don't follow this. > This means that you should be able to simplify the patch set, as we > could entirely drop 0001 in favor of enforcing the new dev GUC in the > nodes created in the TAP test of 0002. Maybe it's possible by breaking the test into ones that need only one tablespace. I'll give it a try. > Speaking of 0002, perhaps this had better be in its own file rather > than extending more 011_crash_recovery.pl. 0003 looks like a good Ok, no problem. > idea to check after the consistency of the path structures created > during replay, and it touches paths I'd expect it to touch, as of > database and tbspace redos. > > + if (!reachedConsistency) > + XLogForgetMissingDir(xlrec->ts_id, InvalidOid); > + > + XLogFlush(record->EndRecPtr); > Not sure to understand why this is required. A comment may be in > order to explain the hows and the whys. Is it about XLogFlush? As my understanding it is to update minRecoveryPoint to that LSN. I'll add a comment like that. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
