From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Too-short timeouts in test code
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 18:24:35 -0800
Message-ID: <20181209022435.GE2973271@rfd.leadboat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181209021412.GC1833@paquier.xyz>
References: <20181209001601.GC2973271@rfd.leadboat.com>
<20181209021412.GC1833@paquier.xyz>
On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 11:14:12AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 04:16:01PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ my $endpos = $node_master->safe_psql('postgres',
> > print "waiting to replay $endpos\n";
> >
> > my $stdout_recv = $node_master->pg_recvlogical_upto(
> > - 'postgres', 'test_slot', $endpos, 10,
> > + 'postgres', 'test_slot', $endpos, 180,
> > 'include-xids' => '0',
> > 'skip-empty-xacts' => '1');
>
> Instead of allowing callers of pg_recvlogical_upto() to define the
> timeout they want, perhaps it would be better to hardcode the timeout
> limit within the routine?
pg_recvlogical_upto() has the ability to make timeout non-fatal, by calling it
in an array context. No in-tree test uses that. Out-of-tree code using that
feature would likely benefit from the ability to set timeout duration. Hence,
I'm inclined not remove the timeout duration parameter.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: noah@leadboat.com, michael@paquier.xyz
Subject: Re: Too-short timeouts in test code
In-Reply-To: <20181209022435.GE2973271@rfd.leadboat.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox