Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression
Date: 2023-01-31 03:50:47
Message-ID: Y9iQF+Umvql62SFi@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 02:57:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 1) means more test cycles, and perhaps we could enforce compression of
> WAL while on it? At the end, my vote would just go for 3) and drop
> the whole scenario, though there may be an argument in 1).

And actually I was under the impression that 1) is not completely
stable either in the test because we rely on the return result of
txid_current() with IPC::Run::start, so a checkpoint forcing a flush
may not be able to do its work. In order to bring all my animals back
to green, I have removed the test.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2023-01-31 03:56:39 Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages
Previous Message houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com 2023-01-31 03:34:45 RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply