On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:09 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 06:49:10PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestion, added the same in the attached version.
>
> Hmm. The run-time of 020_archive_status.p bumps from 4.7s to 5.8s on
> my laptop, so the change is noticeable. I agree that it would be good
> to have more coverage for those commands, but I also think that we
> should make things cheaper if we can, particularly knowing that those
> commands just touch a file. This patch creates two stanbys for its
> purpose, but do we need that much?
>
> On top of that, 020_archive_status.pl does not look like the correct
> place for this set of tests. 002_archiving.pl would be a better
> candidate, where we already have two standbys that get promoted, so
> you could have both the failure and success cases there. There should
> be no need for extra wait phases either.
>
Understood, moved tests to 002_archiving.pl in the attached version.
> +$standby4->append_conf('postgresql.conf',
> + "recovery_end_command = 'echo recovery_ended > /non_existing_dir/file'");
> I am wondering how this finishes on Windows.
My colleague Neha Sharma has confirmed that the attached version is
passing on the Windows.
Regards,
Amul