| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Subject: | Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe) |
| Date: | 2023-04-27 14:12:15 |
| Message-ID: | 86FBC46E-9192-45AB-B0D8-6118747B7185@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 27 Apr 2023, at 16:06, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:02 PM John Naylor
> <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> ...that call to background_psql doesn't look like other ones that have "key => value". Is there something I'm missing?
>
> Thanks for reporting. I think that the patch needs to be updated since
> commit 664d757531e1 changed background psql TAP functions. I've
> attached the updated patch.
Is there a risk that the background psql will time out on slow systems during
the consumption of 2B xid's? Since you mainly want to hold it open for the
duration of testing you might want to bump it to avoid false negatives on slow
test systems.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-04-27 14:53:01 | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-04-27 14:06:40 | Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe) |