Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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