Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Refactor routine to find single log content pattern in TAP tests

  2. Refactor log check logic for connect_ok/fails in PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster

  1. Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> — 2023-05-25T14:23:51Z

    Hi,

The recovery tap test has 4 implementations of find_in_log sub routine
for various uses, I felt we can generalize these and have a single
function for the same. The attached patch is an attempt to have a
generalized sub routine find_in_log which can be used by all of them.
Thoughts?

Regards,
VIgnesh

  2. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org> — 2023-05-25T17:34:20Z

    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> The recovery tap test has 4 implementations of find_in_log sub routine
> for various uses, I felt we can generalize these and have a single
> function for the same. The attached patch is an attempt to have a
> generalized sub routine find_in_log which can be used by all of them.
> Thoughts?

+1 on factoring out this common code. Just a few comments on the implementation.


> diff --git a/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm b/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm
> index a27fac83d2..5c9b2f6c03 100644
> --- a/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm
> +++ b/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ our @EXPORT = qw(
>    slurp_file
>    append_to_file
>    string_replace_file
> +  find_in_log
>    check_mode_recursive
>    chmod_recursive
>    check_pg_config
> @@ -579,6 +580,28 @@ sub string_replace_file
> 
>  =pod
>
> +
> +=item find_in_log(node, pattern, offset)
> +
> +Find pattern in logfile of node after offset byte.
> +
> +=cut
> +
> +sub find_in_log
> +{
> +	my ($node, $pattern, $offset) = @_;
> +
> +	$offset = 0 unless defined $offset;
> +	my $log = PostgreSQL::Test::Utils::slurp_file($node->logfile);

Since this function is in the same package, there's no need to qualify
it with the full name.  I know the callers you copied it from did, but
they wouldn't have had to either, since it's exported by default (in the
@EXPORT array above), unless the use statement has an explicit argument
list that excludes it.

> +	return 0 if (length($log) <= 0 || length($log) <= $offset);
> +
> +	$log = substr($log, $offset);

Also, the existing callers don't seem to have got the memo that
slurp_file() takes an optinal offset parameter, which will cause it to
seek to that postion before slurping the file, which is more efficient
than reading the whole file in and substr-ing it.  There's not much
point in the length checks either, since regex-matching against an empty
string is very cheap (and if the provide pattern can match the empty
string the whole function call is rather pointless).

> +	return $log =~ m/$pattern/;
> +}

All in all, it could be simplified to:

    sub find_in_log {
        my ($node, $pattern, $offset) = @_;

        return slurp_file($node->logfile, $offset) =~ $pattern;
    }

However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
objects, which makes me think it should be a method on the node itself
(i.e. in PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster) instead.  Also, I think log_contains
would be a better name, since it just returns a boolean.  The name
find_in_log makes me think it would return the log lines matching the
pattern, or the position of the match in the file.

In that case, the slurp_file() call would have to be fully qualified,
since ::Cluster uses an empty import list to avoid polluting the method
namespace with imported functions.

- ilmari

  3. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-05-25T22:39:17Z

    On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:34:20PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
> objects, which makes me think it should be a method on the node itself
> (i.e. in PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster) instead.  Also, I think log_contains
> would be a better name, since it just returns a boolean.  The name
> find_in_log makes me think it would return the log lines matching the
> pattern, or the position of the match in the file.
> 
> In that case, the slurp_file() call would have to be fully qualified,
> since ::Cluster uses an empty import list to avoid polluting the method
> namespace with imported functions.

Hmm.  connect_ok() and connect_fails() in Cluster.pm have a similar
log comparison logic, feeding from the offset of a log file.  Couldn't
you use the same code across the board for everything?  Note that this
stuff is parameterized so as it is possible to check if patterns match
or do not match, for multiple patterns.  It seems to me that we could
use the new log finding routine there as well, so how about extending
it a bit more?  You would need, at least:
- One parameter for log entries matching.
- One parameter for log entries not matching.
--
Michael

  4. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> — 2023-05-26T17:00:12Z

    On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 23:04, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
<ilmari@ilmari.org> wrote:
>
> vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The recovery tap test has 4 implementations of find_in_log sub routine
> > for various uses, I felt we can generalize these and have a single
> > function for the same. The attached patch is an attempt to have a
> > generalized sub routine find_in_log which can be used by all of them.
> > Thoughts?
>
> +1 on factoring out this common code. Just a few comments on the implementation.
>
>
> > diff --git a/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm b/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm
> > index a27fac83d2..5c9b2f6c03 100644
> > --- a/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm
> > +++ b/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm
> > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ our @EXPORT = qw(
> >    slurp_file
> >    append_to_file
> >    string_replace_file
> > +  find_in_log
> >    check_mode_recursive
> >    chmod_recursive
> >    check_pg_config
> > @@ -579,6 +580,28 @@ sub string_replace_file
> >
> >  =pod
> >
> > +
> > +=item find_in_log(node, pattern, offset)
> > +
> > +Find pattern in logfile of node after offset byte.
> > +
> > +=cut
> > +
> > +sub find_in_log
> > +{
> > +     my ($node, $pattern, $offset) = @_;
> > +
> > +     $offset = 0 unless defined $offset;
> > +     my $log = PostgreSQL::Test::Utils::slurp_file($node->logfile);
>
> Since this function is in the same package, there's no need to qualify
> it with the full name.  I know the callers you copied it from did, but
> they wouldn't have had to either, since it's exported by default (in the
> @EXPORT array above), unless the use statement has an explicit argument
> list that excludes it.

I have moved this function to Cluster.pm file now, since it is moved,
I had to qualify the name with the full name.

> > +     return 0 if (length($log) <= 0 || length($log) <= $offset);
> > +
> > +     $log = substr($log, $offset);
>
> Also, the existing callers don't seem to have got the memo that
> slurp_file() takes an optinal offset parameter, which will cause it to
> seek to that postion before slurping the file, which is more efficient
> than reading the whole file in and substr-ing it.  There's not much
> point in the length checks either, since regex-matching against an empty
> string is very cheap (and if the provide pattern can match the empty
> string the whole function call is rather pointless).
>
> > +     return $log =~ m/$pattern/;
> > +}
>
> All in all, it could be simplified to:
>
>     sub find_in_log {
>         my ($node, $pattern, $offset) = @_;
>
>         return slurp_file($node->logfile, $offset) =~ $pattern;
>     }

Modified in similar lines

> However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
> objects, which makes me think it should be a method on the node itself
> (i.e. in PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster) instead.  Also, I think log_contains
> would be a better name, since it just returns a boolean.  The name
> find_in_log makes me think it would return the log lines matching the
> pattern, or the position of the match in the file.

Modified

> In that case, the slurp_file() call would have to be fully qualified,
> since ::Cluster uses an empty import list to avoid polluting the method
> namespace with imported functions.

Modified.

Thanks for the comments, the attached v2 version patch has the changes
for the same.

Regards,
Vignesh

  5. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> — 2023-05-27T00:35:24Z

    On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 04:09, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:34:20PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
> > objects, which makes me think it should be a method on the node itself
> > (i.e. in PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster) instead.  Also, I think log_contains
> > would be a better name, since it just returns a boolean.  The name
> > find_in_log makes me think it would return the log lines matching the
> > pattern, or the position of the match in the file.
> >
> > In that case, the slurp_file() call would have to be fully qualified,
> > since ::Cluster uses an empty import list to avoid polluting the method
> > namespace with imported functions.
>
> Hmm.  connect_ok() and connect_fails() in Cluster.pm have a similar
> log comparison logic, feeding from the offset of a log file.  Couldn't
> you use the same code across the board for everything?  Note that this
> stuff is parameterized so as it is possible to check if patterns match
> or do not match, for multiple patterns.  It seems to me that we could
> use the new log finding routine there as well, so how about extending
> it a bit more?  You would need, at least:
> - One parameter for log entries matching.
> - One parameter for log entries not matching.

I felt adding these to log_contains was making the function slightly
complex with multiple checks. I was not able to make it simple with
the approach I tried. How about having a common function
check_connect_log_contents which has the common log contents check for
connect_ok and connect_fails function like the v2-0002 patch attached.

Regards,
Vignesh

  6. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2023-05-27T12:01:58Z

    On 2023-05-26 Fr 20:35, vignesh C wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 04:09, Michael Paquier<michael@paquier.xyz>  wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:34:20PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>>> However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
>>> objects, which makes me think it should be a method on the node itself
>>> (i.e. in PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster) instead.  Also, I think log_contains
>>> would be a better name, since it just returns a boolean.  The name
>>> find_in_log makes me think it would return the log lines matching the
>>> pattern, or the position of the match in the file.
>>>
>>> In that case, the slurp_file() call would have to be fully qualified,
>>> since ::Cluster uses an empty import list to avoid polluting the method
>>> namespace with imported functions.
>> Hmm.  connect_ok() and connect_fails() in Cluster.pm have a similar
>> log comparison logic, feeding from the offset of a log file.  Couldn't
>> you use the same code across the board for everything?  Note that this
>> stuff is parameterized so as it is possible to check if patterns match
>> or do not match, for multiple patterns.  It seems to me that we could
>> use the new log finding routine there as well, so how about extending
>> it a bit more?  You would need, at least:
>> - One parameter for log entries matching.
>> - One parameter for log entries not matching.
> I felt adding these to log_contains was making the function slightly
> complex with multiple checks. I was not able to make it simple with
> the approach I tried. How about having a common function
> check_connect_log_contents which has the common log contents check for
> connect_ok and connect_fails function like the v2-0002 patch attached.


+    $offset = 0 unless defined $offset;


This is unnecessary, as slurp_file() handles it appropriately, and in 
fact doing this is slightly inefficient, as it will cause slurp_file to 
do a redundant seek.

FYI there's a simpler way to say it if we wanted to:

     $offset //= 0;


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com

  7. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> — 2023-05-29T02:19:52Z

    On Sat, 27 May 2023 at 17:32, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 2023-05-26 Fr 20:35, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 04:09, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:34:20PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>
> However, none of the other functions in ::Utils know anything about node
> objects, which makes me think it should be a method on the node itself
> (i.e. in PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster) instead.  Also, I think log_contains
> would be a better name, since it just returns a boolean.  The name
> find_in_log makes me think it would return the log lines matching the
> pattern, or the position of the match in the file.
>
> In that case, the slurp_file() call would have to be fully qualified,
> since ::Cluster uses an empty import list to avoid polluting the method
> namespace with imported functions.
>
> Hmm.  connect_ok() and connect_fails() in Cluster.pm have a similar
> log comparison logic, feeding from the offset of a log file.  Couldn't
> you use the same code across the board for everything?  Note that this
> stuff is parameterized so as it is possible to check if patterns match
> or do not match, for multiple patterns.  It seems to me that we could
> use the new log finding routine there as well, so how about extending
> it a bit more?  You would need, at least:
> - One parameter for log entries matching.
> - One parameter for log entries not matching.
>
> I felt adding these to log_contains was making the function slightly
> complex with multiple checks. I was not able to make it simple with
> the approach I tried. How about having a common function
> check_connect_log_contents which has the common log contents check for
> connect_ok and connect_fails function like the v2-0002 patch attached.
>
>
> +    $offset = 0 unless defined $offset;
>
>
> This is unnecessary, as slurp_file() handles it appropriately, and in fact doing this is slightly inefficient, as it will cause slurp_file to do a redundant seek.
>
> FYI there's a simpler way to say it if we wanted to:
>
>     $offset //= 0;

Thanks for the comment, the attached v3 version patch has the changes
for the same.

Regards,
Vignesh

  8. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-06-03T22:21:27Z

    On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 07:49:52AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> Thanks for the comment, the attached v3 version patch has the changes
> for the same.

-if (find_in_log(
-		$node, $log_offset,
-		qr/peer authentication is not supported on this platform/))
+if ($node->log_contains(
+		qr/peer authentication is not supported on this platform/),
+		$log_offset,)

This looks like a typo to me, the log offset is eaten.

Except of that, I am on board with log_contains().

There are two things that bugged me with the refactoring related to
connect_ok and connect_fails:
- check_connect_log_contents() is a name too complicated.  While
looking at that I have settled to a simpler log_check(), as we could
perfectly use that for something else than connections as long as we
want to check multiple patterns at once.
- The refactoring of the documentation for the routines of Cluster.pm
became incorrect.  For example, the patch does not list anymore
log_like and log_unlike for connect_ok.

With all that in mind I have hacked a few adjustments in a 0003,
though I agree with the separation between 0001 and 0002.

033_replay_tsp_drops and 019_replslot_limit are not new to v16, but
003_peer.pl and 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl, making the number of
places where find_in_log() exists twice as much.  So I would be
tempted to refactor these tests in v16.  Perhaps anybody from the RMT
could comment?  We've usually been quite flexible with the tests even
in beta.

Thoughts?
--
Michael

  9. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> — 2023-06-05T16:09:22Z

    On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 at 03:51, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 07:49:52AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the comment, the attached v3 version patch has the changes
> > for the same.
>
> -if (find_in_log(
> -               $node, $log_offset,
> -               qr/peer authentication is not supported on this platform/))
> +if ($node->log_contains(
> +               qr/peer authentication is not supported on this platform/),
> +               $log_offset,)
>
> This looks like a typo to me, the log offset is eaten.
>
> Except of that, I am on board with log_contains().

Thanks for fixing this.

> There are two things that bugged me with the refactoring related to
> connect_ok and connect_fails:
> - check_connect_log_contents() is a name too complicated.  While
> looking at that I have settled to a simpler log_check(), as we could
> perfectly use that for something else than connections as long as we
> want to check multiple patterns at once.
> - The refactoring of the documentation for the routines of Cluster.pm
> became incorrect.  For example, the patch does not list anymore
> log_like and log_unlike for connect_ok.

This new name suggested by you looks simpler, your documentation of
having it in connect_ok and connect_fails and referring it to
log_check makes it more clearer.

Regards,
Vignesh

  10. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2023-06-06T02:35:49Z

    On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 3:51 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 07:49:52AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the comment, the attached v3 version patch has the changes
> > for the same.
>
> -if (find_in_log(
> -               $node, $log_offset,
> -               qr/peer authentication is not supported on this platform/))
> +if ($node->log_contains(
> +               qr/peer authentication is not supported on this platform/),
> +               $log_offset,)
>
> This looks like a typo to me, the log offset is eaten.
>
> Except of that, I am on board with log_contains().
>
> There are two things that bugged me with the refactoring related to
> connect_ok and connect_fails:
> - check_connect_log_contents() is a name too complicated.  While
> looking at that I have settled to a simpler log_check(), as we could
> perfectly use that for something else than connections as long as we
> want to check multiple patterns at once.
> - The refactoring of the documentation for the routines of Cluster.pm
> became incorrect.  For example, the patch does not list anymore
> log_like and log_unlike for connect_ok.
>
> With all that in mind I have hacked a few adjustments in a 0003,
> though I agree with the separation between 0001 and 0002.
>
> 033_replay_tsp_drops and 019_replslot_limit are not new to v16, but
> 003_peer.pl and 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl, making the number of
> places where find_in_log() exists twice as much.  So I would be
> tempted to refactor these tests in v16.  Perhaps anybody from the RMT
> could comment?  We've usually been quite flexible with the tests even
> in beta.
>

Personally, I don't see any problem to do this refactoring for v16.
However, sometimes, we do decide to backpatch refactoring in tests to
avoid backpatch effort. I am not completely sure if that is the case
here.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

  11. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-06-06T04:06:33Z

    On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Personally, I don't see any problem to do this refactoring for v16.
> However, sometimes, we do decide to backpatch refactoring in tests to
> avoid backpatch effort. I am not completely sure if that is the case
> here.

033_replay_tsp_drops.pl has one find_in_log() down to 11, and
019_replslot_limit.pl has four calls down to 14.  Making things
consistent everywhere is a rather appealing argument to ease future
backpatching.  So I am OK to spend a few extra cycles in adjusting
these routines all the way down where needed.  I'll do that tomorrow
once I get back in front of my laptop.

Note that connect_ok() and connect_fails() are new to 14, so this
part has no need to go further down than that.
--
Michael

  12. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2023-06-06T04:30:00Z

    On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 9:39 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 at 03:51, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > This looks like a typo to me, the log offset is eaten.
> >
> > Except of that, I am on board with log_contains().
>
> Thanks for fixing this.

+1 for deduplicating find_in_log. How about deduplicating advance_wal
too so that 019_replslot_limit.pl, 033_replay_tsp_drops.pl,
035_standby_logical_decoding.pl and 001_stream_rep.pl can benefit
immediately?

FWIW, a previous discussion related to this is here
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALj2ACVUcXtLgHRPbx28ZQQyRM6j%2BeSH3jNUALr2pJ4%2Bf%3DHRGA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

  13. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-06-06T10:41:18Z

    On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 10:00:00AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> +1 for deduplicating find_in_log. How about deduplicating advance_wal
> too so that 019_replslot_limit.pl, 033_replay_tsp_drops.pl,
> 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl and 001_stream_rep.pl can benefit
> immediately?

As in a small wrapper for pg_switch_wal() that generates N segments at
will?  I don't see why we could not do that if it proves useful in the
long run.
--
Michael

  14. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2023-06-06T12:23:40Z

    On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 4:11 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 10:00:00AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > +1 for deduplicating find_in_log. How about deduplicating advance_wal
> > too so that 019_replslot_limit.pl, 033_replay_tsp_drops.pl,
> > 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl and 001_stream_rep.pl can benefit
> > immediately?
>
> As in a small wrapper for pg_switch_wal() that generates N segments at
> will?

Yes. A simpler way of doing it would be to move advance_wal() in
019_replslot_limit.pl to Cluster.pm, something like the attached. CI
members don't complain with it
https://github.com/BRupireddy/postgres/tree/add_a_function_in_Cluster.pm_to_generate_WAL.
Perhaps, we can name it better instead of advance_wal, say
generate_wal or some other?

> I don't see why we could not do that if it proves useful in the
> long run.

Besides the beneficiaries listed above, the test case added by
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/43/3663/ can use it. And, the
test_table bits in 020_pg_receivewal.pl can use it (?).

--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

  15. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> — 2023-06-06T13:13:44Z

    On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 09:36, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Personally, I don't see any problem to do this refactoring for v16.
> > However, sometimes, we do decide to backpatch refactoring in tests to
> > avoid backpatch effort. I am not completely sure if that is the case
> > here.
>
> 033_replay_tsp_drops.pl has one find_in_log() down to 11, and
> 019_replslot_limit.pl has four calls down to 14.  Making things
> consistent everywhere is a rather appealing argument to ease future
> backpatching.  So I am OK to spend a few extra cycles in adjusting
> these routines all the way down where needed.  I'll do that tomorrow
> once I get back in front of my laptop.
>
> Note that connect_ok() and connect_fails() are new to 14, so this
> part has no need to go further down than that.

Please find the attached patches that can be applied on back branches
too. v5*master.patch can be applied on master, v5*PG15.patch can be
applied on PG15, v5*PG14.patch can be applied on PG14, v5*PG13.patch
can be applied on PG13, v5*PG12.patch can be applied on PG12, PG11 and
PG10.

Regards,
Vignesh

  16. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-06-09T02:59:03Z

    On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:53:40PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Yes. A simpler way of doing it would be to move advance_wal() in
> 019_replslot_limit.pl to Cluster.pm, something like the attached. CI
> members don't complain with it
> https://github.com/BRupireddy/postgres/tree/add_a_function_in_Cluster.pm_to_generate_WAL.
> Perhaps, we can name it better instead of advance_wal, say
> generate_wal or some other?

Why not discussing that on a separate thread?  What you are proposing
is independent of what Vignesh has proposed.  Note that the patch
format is octet-stream, causing extra CRs to exist in the patch.
Something happened on your side when you sent your patch, I guess?
--
Michael

  17. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-06-09T03:01:24Z

    On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 06:43:44PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> Please find the attached patches that can be applied on back branches
> too. v5*master.patch can be applied on master, v5*PG15.patch can be
> applied on PG15, v5*PG14.patch can be applied on PG14, v5*PG13.patch
> can be applied on PG13, v5*PG12.patch can be applied on PG12, PG11 and
> PG10.

Thanks.  The amount of minimal conflicts across all these branches is
always fun to play with.  I have finally got around and applied all
that, after doing a proper split, applying one part down to 14 and the
second back to 11.
--
Michael

  18. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2023-06-11T01:47:55Z

    On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:29 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:53:40PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Yes. A simpler way of doing it would be to move advance_wal() in
> > 019_replslot_limit.pl to Cluster.pm, something like the attached. CI
> > members don't complain with it
> > https://github.com/BRupireddy/postgres/tree/add_a_function_in_Cluster.pm_to_generate_WAL.
> > Perhaps, we can name it better instead of advance_wal, say
> > generate_wal or some other?
>
> Why not discussing that on a separate thread?  What you are proposing
> is independent of what Vignesh has proposed.

Sure. Here it is  -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACU3R8QFCvDewHCMKjgb2w_-CMCyd6DAK%3DJb-af14da5eg%40mail.gmail.com.

> Note that the patch
> format is octet-stream, causing extra CRs to exist in the patch.
> Something happened on your side when you sent your patch, I guess?

Had to attach the patch in .txt format to not block Vignesh's patch
from testing by CF Bot (if at all this thread was added there).

--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

  19. Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test

    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> — 2023-06-11T03:12:04Z

    On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 08:31, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 06:43:44PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > Please find the attached patches that can be applied on back branches
> > too. v5*master.patch can be applied on master, v5*PG15.patch can be
> > applied on PG15, v5*PG14.patch can be applied on PG14, v5*PG13.patch
> > can be applied on PG13, v5*PG12.patch can be applied on PG12, PG11 and
> > PG10.
>
> Thanks.  The amount of minimal conflicts across all these branches is
> always fun to play with.  I have finally got around and applied all
> that, after doing a proper split, applying one part down to 14 and the
> second back to 11.

Thanks for pushing this.

Regards,
Vignesh