RE: Why is parula failing?

From: "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Why is parula failing?
Date: 2024-03-26 08:03:36
Message-ID: 42a68c37debe4ac8b8ad82b537ec6b96@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi David / Tom,

> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It would be good to have log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0 on this machine for a while.

- Have set log_autovacuum_min_duration=0 on parula and a test run came out okay.
- Also added REL_16_STABLE to the branches being tested (in case it matters here).

Let me know if I can help with any other changes here.
-
Robins | tharar@ | adelaide(at)australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2024-03-26 08:07:21 Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Previous Message Alexander Lakhin 2024-03-26 08:00:00 Re: ALTER TABLE SET ACCESS METHOD on partitioned tables