On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:49:41AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:26:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > > * Andrew Dunstan (andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > >> On 03/22/2017 11:39 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >> > * Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
> > >> >> Sync pg_dump and pg_dumpall output
> > >> > This probably should have adjusted all callers of pg_dump in the
> > >> > regression tests to use the --no-sync option, otherwise we'll end up
> > >> > spending possibly a good bit of time calling fsync() during the
> > >> > regression tests unnecessairly.
> > >>
> > >> All of them? The imnpact is not likely to be huge in most cases
> > >> (possibly different on Windows). On crake, the bin-check stage actually
> > >> took less time after the change than before, so I suspect that the
> > >> impact will be pretty small.
> > >
> > > Well, perhaps not all, but I'd think --no-sync would be better to have
> > > in most cases. We turn off fsync for all of the TAP tests and all
> > > initdb calls, so it seems like we should here too. Perhaps it won't be
> > > much overhead on an unloaded system, but not all of the buildfarm
> > > animals seem to be on unloaded systems, nor are they particularly fast
> > > in general or have fast i/o..
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >> Still I agree that we should have tests for both cases.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, though if I recall correctly, we've basically had zero calls
> > > for fsync() until this. If we don't feel like we need to test that in
> > > the backend then it seems a bit silly to feel like we need it for
> > > pg_dump's regression coverage.
> > >
> > > That said, perhaps the right answer is to have a couple tests for both
> > > the backend and for pg_dump which do exercise the fsync-enabled paths.
> >
> > And agreed.
> >
> > The patch attached uses --no-sync in most places for pg_dump, except
> > in 4 places of 002_pg_dump.pl to stress as well the sync code path.
>
> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Andrew,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com