| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby |
| Date: | 2010-05-01 16:37:25 |
| Message-ID: | 4434.1272731845@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 09:05 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> maybe we should be using the tables that exists in the regression
>> database or adding hs_setup_primary in installcheck to prepare the
>> regression database to run standbycheck in the standby server
> That's part of the procedure already.
Where is this test procedure documented?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-01 16:56:31 | Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-01 16:06:01 | Re: Protecting against case where shmget says EINVAL instead of EEXIST |