Re: Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster
Date: 2016-04-04 01:39:03
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQ1zOzRbbRD+aVOBanPuciq3H561XTXKUX97UjS72v+cQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Noah Misch wrote:
>>
>>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Alvaro,
>>> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
>>> item.
>>
>> That's correct. Since we already had a patch available, I pushed it.
>> I'll wait for a few days before marking the open item as closed in the
>> wiki, to make sure that hamster reports success a few times.
>
> Thanks. I just did a couple of additional manual tests on hamster, and
> the sporadic failure does not show up anymore, so the daily runs
> should be in good shape now for this test.

The failing test has passed 7 days in a row, so I am marking this
issue as fixed.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-04-04 01:56:23 Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-04-04 00:46:15 Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run