From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results |
Date: | 2003-02-03 20:06:45 |
Message-ID: | 1109.62.136.241.62.1044302805.squirrel@ssl.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor allegedly said:
>> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency
>> checks. The updated version is attached.
>
> For curiosity sake, I've compiled it and am running it on FreeBSD with
> soft-updates enabled.
>
> A few variable declarations needed to be bumped up to the top of their
> respective function.
I've been doing a fair bit of C++ recently...
> Any change of tossing in a periodic VACUUM or would that throw off the
> results?
Dunno, Tom could best answer that, but a *complete guess* based on piecing
together tidbits of how it all works from various threads here, would be
that it would merely increase the time period during which a powerfail
would be unlikely to cause duplicate rows. Reasoning for this is that
vacuum would be messing with tuples that are already dead.
Please correct me if I'm wrong :-)
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-02-03 20:11:47 | Re: v7.3.2 Tag'd and Bundle'd ... |
Previous Message | Kurt Roeckx | 2003-02-03 19:55:03 | Re: PGP signing releases |