From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Addition of --no-sync to pg_upgrade for test speedup |
Date: | 2021-12-20 13:46:13 |
Message-ID: | 202112201346.kd5aiqeraozg@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Dec-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In pg_upgrade, we let the flush happen with initdb --sync-only, based
> on the binary path of the new cluster, so I think that we are not
> going to miss any test coverage by skipping that.
There was one patch of mine with breakage that only manifested in the
pg_upgrade test *because* of its lack of no-sync. I'm afraid that this
change would hide certain problems.
https://postgr.es/m/20210130023011.n545o54j65t4kgxn@alap3.anarazel.de
> Thoughts or opinions?
I'm not 100% comfortable with this. What can we do to preserve *some*
testing that include syncing? Maybe some option that a few buildfarm
animals use?
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The Postgresql hackers have what I call a "NASA space shot" mentality.
Quite refreshing in a world of "weekend drag racer" developers."
(Scott Marlowe)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-12-20 13:53:46 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
Previous Message | Jakub Wartak | 2021-12-20 13:38:35 | RE: In-placre persistance change of a relation |