From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: stats.sql fails during installcheck on mac |
Date: | 2025-04-11 23:06:30 |
Message-ID: | Z_mgdqU8ILqlJt3q@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 10:44:59AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I actually originally had it this way, but for some reason
> felt it would be better to be explicit about the methods we want to test rather
> than not test. I can't think of a very compelling reason to go either way, so v2
> LGTM.
I will proceed with v2 then, thanks.
> what do you think of this? I think we should set fsync = on
> at least for the part of the test that proceeds the 2 checkpoints and
> set if back to off at the end of the tests for fsync stats. It is concerning
> the tests for the fsync stats are not being exercised in
> the buildfarm.
One thing I fear here is the impact for animals with little capacity,
like PIs and the like. On the other hand, I could just switch one of
my animals to use fsync = on on at least one branch.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2025-04-11 23:35:42 | Re: New committer: Jacob Champion |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-04-11 23:01:37 | Re: New committer: Jacob Champion |