On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 08:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 06:43:44PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > Please find the attached patches that can be applied on back branches
> > too. v5*master.patch can be applied on master, v5*PG15.patch can be
> > applied on PG15, v5*PG14.patch ca
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:29 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:53:40PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Yes. A simpler way of doing it would be to move advance_wal() in
> > 019_replslot_limit.pl to Cluster.pm, something like the attached. CI
> > members don't complain with
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 06:43:44PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> Please find the attached patches that can be applied on back branches
> too. v5*master.patch can be applied on master, v5*PG15.patch can be
> applied on PG15, v5*PG14.patch can be applied on PG14, v5*PG13.patch
> can be applied on PG13, v
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:53:40PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Yes. A simpler way of doing it would be to move advance_wal() in
> 019_replslot_limit.pl to Cluster.pm, something like the attached. CI
> members don't complain with it
> https://github.com/BRupireddy/postgres/tree/add_a_function_
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 09:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Personally, I don't see any problem to do this refactoring for v16.
> > However, sometimes, we do decide to backpatch refactoring in tests to
> > avoid backpatch effort. I am no
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 4:11 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 10:00:00AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > +1 for deduplicating find_in_log. How about deduplicating advance_wal
> > too so that 019_replslot_limit.pl, 033_replay_tsp_drops.pl,
> > 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 10:00:00AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> +1 for deduplicating find_in_log. How about deduplicating advance_wal
> too so that 019_replslot_limit.pl, 033_replay_tsp_drops.pl,
> 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl and 001_stream_rep.pl can benefit
> immediately?
As in a small
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 9:39 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 at 03:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > This looks like a typo to me, the log offset is eaten.
> >
> > Except of that, I am on board with log_contains().
>
> Thanks for fixing this.
+1 for deduplicating find_in_log. How abou
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Personally, I don't see any problem to do this refactoring for v16.
> However, sometimes, we do decide to backpatch refactoring in tests to
> avoid backpatch effort. I am not completely sure if that is the case
> here.
033_replay_tsp_d
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 3:51 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 07:49:52AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the comment, the attached v3 version patch has the changes
> > for the same.
>
> -if (find_in_log(
> - $node, $log_offset,
> - qr/peer aut
On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 at 03:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 07:49:52AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the comment, the attached v3 version patch has the changes
> > for the same.
>
> -if (find_in_log(
> - $node, $log_offset,
> - qr/peer authe
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 07:49:52AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> Thanks for the comment, the attached v3 version patch has the changes
> for the same.
-if (find_in_log(
- $node, $log_offset,
- qr/peer authentication is not supported on this platform/))
+if ($node->log_conta
On Sat, 27 May 2023 at 17:32, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 2023-05-26 Fr 20:35, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 04:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:34:20PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>
> However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anythi
On 2023-05-26 Fr 20:35, vignesh C wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 04:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:34:20PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
objects, which makes me think it should be a method
On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 04:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:34:20PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
> > objects, which makes me think it should be a method on the node itself
> > (i.e. in Po
On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 23:04, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
>
> vignesh C writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The recovery tap test has 4 implementations of find_in_log sub routine
> > for various uses, I felt we can generalize these and have a single
> > function for the same. The attached patch is an a
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:34:20PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
> objects, which makes me think it should be a method on the node itself
> (i.e. in PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster) instead. Also, I think log_contains
>
vignesh C writes:
> Hi,
>
> The recovery tap test has 4 implementations of find_in_log sub routine
> for various uses, I felt we can generalize these and have a single
> function for the same. The attached patch is an attempt to have a
> generalized sub routine find_in_log which can be used by al
18 matches
Mail list logo
