Re: Fix a comment in basic_archive about NO_INSTALLCHECK - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Fix a comment in basic_archive about NO_INSTALLCHECK
Date
Msg-id ZC5CzBwhG58VxPG1@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Fix a comment in basic_archive about NO_INSTALLCHECK  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Fix a comment in basic_archive about NO_INSTALLCHECK  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Re: Fix a comment in basic_archive about NO_INSTALLCHECK  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:56:10AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> It looks like comments in make file and meson file about not running
> basic_archive tests in NO_INSTALLCHECK mode are wrong. The comments say the
> module needs to be loaded via shared_preload_libraries=basic_archive, but
> it actually doesn't. The custom file needs archive related parameters and
> wal_level=replica. Here's a patch correcting that comment.

Wouldn't it be better to also set shared_preload_libraries in
basic_archive.conf?  It is true that the test works fine if setting
only archive_library, which would cause the library with its
_PG_init() to be loaded in the archiver process.  However the GUC
basic_archive.archive_directory is missing from the backends.

Saying that, updating the comments about the dependency with
archive_library and the module's GUC is right.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
Next
From: Alexander Lakhin
Date:
Subject: Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN