| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility |
| Date: | 2018-03-30 23:11:02 |
| Message-ID: | 11426.1522451462@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> On 03/30/18 16:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I did not like the proposed test case too much, particularly not its
>> undocumented API change for check_pg_config,
> Other than that API change, was there something the test case could have
> done differently to make you like it more?
Well, if that'd been properly documented I'd probably have pushed it
without complaint. But I did wonder whether it could've been folded
into one of the existing tests of pg_switch_wal(). This doesn't seem
like a property worth spending a lot of cycles on testing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2018-03-30 23:25:35 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2018-03-30 23:08:28 | Re: Enhance pg_stat_wal_receiver view to display connected host |