Re: Fixing WAL instability in various TAP tests

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing WAL instability in various TAP tests
Date: 2021-09-29 03:15:23
Message-ID: YVPaS73/TLfDzlue@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Should we back-patch 0002? I'm inclined to think so. Should
> we then also back-patch enablement of the bloom test? Less
> sure about that, but I'd lean to doing so. A test that appears
> to be there but isn't actually invoked is pretty misleading.

A backpatch sounds adapted to me for both patches. The only risk that
I could see here is somebody implementing a new test by copy-pasting
this one if we were to keep things as they are on stable branches.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com 2021-09-29 03:17:00 RE: Added schema level support for publication.
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-09-29 03:09:57 Re: reindexdb usage message about system catalogs