Re: [HACKERS] Comparing primary/HS standby in tests

2015-03-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-03-04 08:41:23 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > Couldn't we just arbitrarily exclude sequence internal states from the > comparison? Not sure what you mean? You mean just not dump them? I guess we could by editing the contents of a custom format dump? A bit annoying to have a script doing that..

Re: [HACKERS] Comparing primary/HS standby in tests

2015-03-04 Thread Jeff Janes
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I've regularly wished we had automated tests that setup HS and then > compare primary/standby at the end to verify replay worked > correctly. > > Heikki's page comparison tools deals with some of that verification, but > it's really q

Re: [HACKERS] Comparing primary/HS standby in tests

2015-03-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I every now and then run installcheck against a primary, verify that > replay works without errors, and then compare pg_dumpall from both > clusters. Unfortunately that currently requires hand inspection of > dumps, there are differences like

Re: [HACKERS] Comparing primary/HS standby in tests

2015-03-03 Thread Josh Berkus
On 03/03/2015 07:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I'd very much like to add a automated test like this to the tree, but I > don't see wa way to do that sanely without a comparison tool... We could use a comparison tool anyway. Baron Schwartz was pointing out that Percona has a comparison tool for My