Hi,
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:00:10AM +0500, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>
>
> > On 27 Feb 2024, at 04:29, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > For
> > example, the test just posted here does not rely on that:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZdyZya4YrNapWKqz@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
>
> Instead, that test is scanning logs
>
> + # Note: $node_primary->wait_for_replay_catchup($node_standby) would be
> + # hanging here due to the injection point, so check the log instead.+
> + my $terminated = 0;
> + for (my $i = 0; $i < 10 * $PostgreSQL::Test::Utils::timeout_default; $i++)
> + {
> + if ($node_standby->log_contains(
> + 'terminating process .* to release replication slot \"injection_activeslot\"', $logstart))
> + {
> + $terminated = 1;
> + last;
> + }
> + usleep(100_000);
> + }
>
> But, AFAICS, the purpose is the same: wait until event happened.
I think it's easier to understand the tests (I mean what the purpose of the
injection points are) if we don't use an helper function. While the helper
function would make the test easier to read / cleaner, I think it may make them
more difficult to understand as 'await_injection_point' would probably be too
generic.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
