On 10/19/2018 05:32 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> As you pointed out previously, the current code *doesn't* work, before
> or after this change, and we clearly need to rework this to move things
> into libpgcommon and also fix pg_basebackup. Reverting this would at
> least get us back to having similar code between this and pg_basebackup,
> and then it'll be cleaner and clearer to have one patch which moves that
> similar logic into libpgcommon and fixes the missing exceptions for the
> EXEC_BACKEND case.
>
> Keeping the patch doesn't do anything for the pg_basebackup case, and
> confuses the issue by having these filename-pattern-whitelists which
> weren't there before and that should be removed, imv.
>
I don't think just reverting it is really acceptable. The patch was a
response to buildfarm breakage, and moreover was published and discussed
before it was applied. If you don't like it I think you need to publish
a better solution that will not involve reintroducing the buildfarm
error. I don't have a strong opinion about the mechanism. The current
conversation does seem to me to be generating more heat than light, TBH.
But I do have a strong opinion about not having to enable/disable the
TAP test in question constantly.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services