On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> Fewer people will test as we grow the list of modules they must first
>>> install.
>> At worst, all we have to do is provide a script
>> that fetches them, from distro repos if possible,
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Fewer people will test as we grow the list of modules they must first
>> install.
>
> Meh, I don't buy that.
Well, I do. Prerequisites are a pain, and the more of them there are,
the more pain it is.
> At worst, all we have to do is provid
On 10/13/2017 01:04 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:57:24PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 6 October 2017 at 14:03, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
(I do kinda wonder why we rolled our own RecursiveCopy; surely there's
>>>
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:57:24PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 6 October 2017 at 14:03, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (I do kinda wonder why we rolled our own RecursiveCopy; surely there's
> >> a better implementation in CPAN?)
> >
> > Few
On 6 October 2017 at 14:03, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (I do kinda wonder why we rolled our own RecursiveCopy; surely there's
>> a better implementation in CPAN?)
>
> Fewer people will test as we grow the list of modules they must first install
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> (I do kinda wonder why we rolled our own RecursiveCopy; surely there's
> a better implementation in CPAN?)
Fewer people will test as we grow the list of modules they must first install.
Bundling a copy is tempting, but most CPAN modules u
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, I don't much like having it silently ignore files that are present;
>> that seems like a foot-gun in the long run. What do you think of the
>> attached?
> That looks good to me. I have tried pretty hard to break
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, I don't much like having it silently ignore files that are present;
> that seems like a foot-gun in the long run. What do you think of the
> attached?
That looks good to me. I have tried pretty hard to break it, but could not.
--
Michael
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The specific case we need to allow is "ENOENT on a file/dir that was
>> there a moment ago". I think it still behooves us to complain about
>> anything else. If you think it's a simple fix, have at it. But
>> I see
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, even if we fixed this particular call site, I'm sure the issue
>>> would come up again. Certainly we expect hot backups to work with
>>> a changing source dir
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, even if we fixed this particular call site, I'm sure the issue
>> would come up again. Certainly we expect hot backups to work with
>> a changing source directory.
> In short, I'd still like to keep RecursiveCopy
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> I'm not real sure if the appropriate answer to this is "we need to fix
>>> RecursiveCopy" or "we need to fix the callers to not call RecursiveCopy
>>> until the source directory is stable". Thoughts?
>
>> ... So making
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In a moment of idleness I tried to run the TAP tests on pademelon,
>> which is a mighty old and slow machine.
> How long did it take?
The last time I tried it, make check-world took about 3 hours IIRC.
But that was a
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In a moment of idleness I tried to run the TAP tests on pademelon,
> which is a mighty old and slow machine.
How long did it take? Just wondering if that's actually the slowest
one or not to run the full set of recovery tests. This would be might
In a moment of idleness I tried to run the TAP tests on pademelon,
which is a mighty old and slow machine. Behold,
src/test/recovery/t/010_logical_decoding_timelines.pl fell over,
with the relevant section of its log contents being:
# testing logical timeline following with a filesystem-level cop
15 matches
Mail list logo
