Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQn3=T69RDBSMwn9UYLjLdJe+1p+jaOz-o1z9tLG-x8hQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> That lets you  make assertions about replication behaviour. It was built for
> BDR and I think we'll need something along those lines in core if/when any
> kind of logical replication facilities land, for things like testing
> failover slots, etc.
>
> The patch is at:
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=2ndquadrant_bdr.git;a=commit;h=d859de3b13d39d4eddd91f3e6f316a48d31ee0fe
>
> and might be something it's worth having in core as we expand testing of
> replication, failover, etc.

Maybe there is an advantage to have it, but that's hard to make an
opinion without a complicated test case. Both of those things could
clearly work with each other at first sight. PostgresNode can set up a
set of nodes and this patch would be in charge of more complex
scenarios where the same connection or transaction block is needed.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes
Next
From: "Daniel Verite"
Date:
Subject: Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql