Re: Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster
Date: 2016-03-31 19:13:16
Message-ID: 20160331191316.GA149775@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier wrote:

> Actually, the attached is better. This one relies on time() to perform
> the delay checks, and takes care of things even for slow machines.

Thanks, pushed with some minor adjustments.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-03-31 19:14:52 Re: Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-03-31 18:51:02 Re: PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes