From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |
Date: | 2017-03-14 03:48:27 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LBRC7Tg3J1-=DtrpYMM5hs_nfZyc5E4dJ9d_9Rg5u9Sw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> Great, thanks. 0001 looks good to me now, so committed.
>>>>
>>>> Committed 0002.
>>>
>>> Here are some initial review thoughts on 0003 based on a first read-through.
>>
>
>> It seems like a good test to do with this patch would be to set up a
>> pgbench test on the master with a hash index replacing the usual btree
>> index. Then, set up a standby and run a read-only pgbench on the
>> standby while a read-write pgbench test runs on the master. Maybe
>> you've already tried something like that?
>>
>
> I also think so and apart from that I think it makes sense to perform
> recovery test by Jeff Janes tool and probably tests with
> wal_consistency_check. These tests are already running from past seven
> hours or so and I will keep them running for the whole night to see if
> there is any discrepancy.
>
We didn't found any issue with the above testing.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-03-14 03:51:48 | Re: scram and \password |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-14 03:43:13 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve postmaster's logging of listen socket creation. |