Re: WAL consistency check facility

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WAL consistency check facility
Date: 2016-11-03 14:54:53
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob-b235j_P=hfn1ggzVPq+wkFgsiAsp1k89UnA8_XwqVw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
<kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> - Another suggestion was to remove wal_consistency from PostgresNode.pm
> because small buildfarm machines may suffer on it. Although I've no
> experience in this matter, I would like to be certain that nothings breaks
> in recovery tests after some modifications.

I think running the whole test suite with this enabled is going to
provoke complaints from buildfarm owners. That's too bad, because I
agree with you that it would be nice to have the test coverage, but it
seems that many of the buildfarm machines are VMs with very minimal
resource allocations -- or very old physical machines -- or running
with settings like CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS that make runs very slow. If
you blow on them too hard, they fall over.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-11-03 14:59:12 Re: auto_explain vs. parallel query
Previous Message Corey Huinker 2016-11-03 14:54:40 Copying Permissions