Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 03.01.22 22:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The attached proposed patch removes some ancient infrastructure for
>> manually testing hot standby.
> I looked into this some time ago and concluded that this test contains a
> significant amount of testing that isn't obviously do
On 03.01.22 22:50, Tom Lane wrote:
The attached proposed patch removes some ancient infrastructure for
manually testing hot standby. I doubt anyone has used this in years,
because AFAICS there is nothing here that's not done better by the
src/test/recovery TAP tests. (Or if there is, we ought t
04.01.2022 18:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Lakhin writes:
>> It's hardly that important, but we (Postgres Pro) run this test
>> regularly to check for primary-standby compatibility. It's useful when
>> checking binary packages from different minor versions. For example, we
>> setup postgresql-1
Alexander Lakhin writes:
> 04.01.2022 00:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The attached proposed patch removes some ancient infrastructure for
>> manually testing hot standby. I doubt anyone has used this in years,
>> because AFAICS there is nothing here that's not done better by the
>> src/test/recovery TA
Hello Tom,
04.01.2022 00:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> The attached proposed patch removes some ancient infrastructure for
> manually testing hot standby. I doubt anyone has used this in years,
> because AFAICS there is nothing here that's not done better by the
> src/test/recovery TAP tests. (Or if ther
The attached proposed patch removes some ancient infrastructure for
manually testing hot standby. I doubt anyone has used this in years,
because AFAICS there is nothing here that's not done better by the
src/test/recovery TAP tests. (Or if there is, we ought to migrate
it into the TAP tests.)
Th
