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
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 |