| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wal_consistemcy_checking clean on HEAD |
| Date: | 2024-04-09 23:40:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkRw3b4nHOruUcMDhvHObwK8S2nAg3PGA25YTMFc3XPDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:35 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> It's been on my TODO list to automate that in one of my buildfarm
> animals, and never got down to do it. I've looked at the current
> animal fleet, and it looks that we don't have one yet. Perhaps I've
> just missed something?
wal_consistency_checking is very useful in general. I find myself
using it fairly regularly.
That's probably why it's not finding anything now: most people working
on something that touches WAL already know that testing their patch
with wal_consistency_checking early is a good idea. Of course it also
wouldn't be a bad idea to have a BF animal for that, especially
because we already have BF animals that test things far more niche
than this.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-09 23:44:03 | Re: Speed up clean meson builds by ~25% |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-09 23:34:49 | wal_consistemcy_checking clean on HEAD |