On 5/19/19 12:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I went back to take a closer look at why the existing regression tests
> failed to detect this problem. As Michael already noted,
> src/bin/pg_ctl/t/004_logrotate.pl does try to exercise the logging
> collector, and we do have a couple of Windows machines that run the
> TAP tests, so how'd it escape notice?
>
> The answer indeed seems to be that it *was* noticed, but Andrew failed
> to realize what he was seeing:
>
> Author: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
> Branch: master [d611175e5] 2019-03-03 18:19:44 -0500
>
> Don't do pg_ctl logrotate test on Windows
>
> The test crashes and burns quite badly, for some reason, but even if it
> didn't it wouldn't work, since Windows doesn't let you rename a file
> held by a running process.
>
> But even when we do run it, it fails to detect any problem, because
> it's only testing for the existence of a log file not whether anything
> ever gets written into it. As it happens, SysLogger_Start() creates
> the initial log file right in the postmaster (to validate the logging
> parameters), so as 004_logrotate.pl is constituted it fails to prove
> that the syslogger process got launched at all. That's why it
> "passes" even when the syslogger is crashing instantly on launch.
>
> Given the current unpleasantness, I think it's quite important that
> we fix 004_logrotate.pl so that it (a) poses an end-to-end test
> and (b) works on Windows. I think (a) could be managed by having
> the test execute guaranteed-to-fail SQL commands ("select 1/0" or
> the like) and making it look into the log file to verify that the
> expected error messages appear there. (b) is a little harder in
> view of Andrew's point that we can't just summarily rename or unlink
> the log file. But I don't much like using a fixed log file name
> in the test anyway. I propose that we let it use the default logfile
> pattern (postgresql-%Y-%m-%d_%H%M%S.log), and that we just sleep for a
> couple of seconds before requesting rotation, and that we verify that
> the file name actually changed. We can avoid difficult issues of
> guessing what file name got used by having the test script look into
> "current_logfiles" to get the name --- which is another feature that
> there's exactly zero test coverage of right now, so that seems like
> a win all around.
>
Worth a try.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services