Re: prevent immature WAL streaming

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "mengjuan(dot)cmj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com" <mengjuan(dot)cmj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, "Jakub(dot)Wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com" <Jakub(dot)Wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com>, Ryo Matsumura <matsumura(dot)ryo(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: prevent immature WAL streaming
Date: 2021-09-30 20:26:04
Message-ID: 3256631.1633033564@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Hmm. Well, as I said, maybe this part of the test isn't worth much
> anyway. Rather than spending time trying to figure out why isn't this
> triggering the WAL overwriting, I compared the coverage report for
> running only the first test to the coverage report of running only the
> second test. It turns out that there's no relevant coverage increase in
> the second test. So I propose just removing that part.

Seems reasonable. We don't need to spend buildfarm cycles forevermore
on a test that's not adding useful coverage.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-09-30 20:31:33 Re: 002_types.pl fails on some timezones on windows
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2021-09-30 20:24:56 Re: 002_types.pl fails on some timezones on windows