On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:18 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 6:02 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have completely changed the logic for this refactoring. Basically,
> > write_relmap_file(), is already having parameters to control whether
> > to write wal, send inval and we are already passing the dbpath.
> > Instead of making a new function I just pass one additional parameter
> > to this function itself about whether we are creating a new map or not
> > and I think with that changes are very less and this looks cleaner to
> > me. Similarly for load_relmap_file() also I just had to pass the
> > dbpath and memory for destination map. Please have a look and let me
> > know your thoughts.
>
> It's not terrible, but how about something like the attached instead?
> I think this has the effect of reducing the number of cases that the
> low-level code needs to know about from 2 to 1, instead of making it
> go up from 2 to 3.
Yeah this looks cleaner, I will rebase the remaining patch.
> > I think we should also write the test cases for create database
> > strategy. But I do not see any test case for create database for
> > testing the existing options. So I am wondering whether we should add
> > the test case only for the new option we are providing or we should
> > create a separate path which tests the new option as well as the
> > existing options.
>
> FWIW, src/bin/scripts/t/020_createdb.pl does a little bit of testing
> of this kind.
Okay, I think we need to support the strategy in createdb bin as well.
I will do that.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
