| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sync pg_dump and pg_dumpall output |
| Date: | 2017-03-22 16:21:14 |
| Message-ID: | ea466b9d-a235-6471-cfb4-f6b9609beaa7@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 03/22/2017 12:10 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Still I agree that we should have tests for both cases.
> Perhaps, though if I recall correctly, we've basically had zero calls
> for fsync() until this. If we don't feel like we need to test that in
> the backend then it seems a bit silly to feel like we need it for
> pg_dump's regression coverage.
>
> That said, perhaps the right answer is to have a couple tests for both
> the backend and for pg_dump which do exercise the fsync-enabled paths.
>
>
+1
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-03-22 16:39:48 | pgsql: Assign AccessExclusiveLocks against subxacts in Hot Standby |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-22 16:10:07 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sync pg_dump and pg_dumpall output |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-22 16:22:57 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-22 16:20:48 | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |