Re: tweak to a few index tests to hits ambuildempty() routine. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: tweak to a few index tests to hits ambuildempty() routine.
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGL1Oozj9CEH5uG67bdaJC+WJY9234uv68--H2xXGHSEhg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: tweak to a few index tests to hits ambuildempty() routine.  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: tweak to a few index tests to hits ambuildempty() routine.
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 6:15 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:05:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > > Hmm, so 027_stream_regress.pl is not prepared to deal with any unlogged
> > > tables that may be left in the regression database (which is what my
> > > spgist addition did).  I first tried doing a TRUNCATE of the unlogged
> > > table, but that doesn't work either, and it turns out that the
> > > regression database does not have any UNLOGGED relations.  Maybe that's
> > > something we need to cater for, eventually, but for now dropping the
> > > table suffices.  I have pushed that.
> >
> > It does seem like the onus should be on 027_stream_regress.pl to
> > deal with that, rather than restricting what the core tests can
> > leave behind.
>
> Yeah.  Using "pg_dumpall --no-unlogged-table-data", as attached, suffices.

                'pg_dumpall', '-f', $outputdir . '/primary.dump',
-               '--no-sync', '-p', $node_primary->port
+               '--no-sync',  '-p', $node_primary->port,
+               '--no-unlogged-table-data'    # if unlogged, standby
has schema only

LGTM, except for the stray extra whitespace.  I tested by reverting
dec8ad36 locally, at which point "gmake check" still passed but "gmake
-C src/test/recovery/ check PROVE_TESTS=t/027_stream_regress.pl
PROVE_FLAGS=-v" failed, and then your change fixed that.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: docs: mention "pg_read_all_stats" in "track_activities" description
Next
From: mahendrakar s
Date:
Subject: Re: Enforce "max_wal_size/ min_wal_size must be at least twice wal_segment_size" limit while setting GUCs