| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recovery testing for beta |
| Date: | 2014-06-05 18:14:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zO=15Rx2xkmgaCsSvmD2vwYOwqENi6s9xQmKpScpHFCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com
> wrote:
> On 05/29/2014 07:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> It also implicitly tested the xlog parallel write slots thing, as that is
>> common code to all recovery.
>>
>
> During development, I hit a lot of bugs in that patch by setting
> wal_buffers to 32kb (the minimum). Causes more backends to wait for each
> other, exposing deadlocks.
I've run the foreign key version with 32kb for a while and nothing turned
up. I should probably run the gist or gin versions, as they should put
more stress on the volume of WAL generated.
Thanks
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-06-05 19:53:17 | Re: slotname vs slot_name |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-05 17:56:10 | Re: slotname vs slot_name |