| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wal_consistemcy_checking clean on HEAD |
| Date: | 2024-04-15 05:19:40 |
| Message-ID: | Zhy47Dnj8_aiTWFa@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 07:40:57PM -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> 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.
wal_consistency_checking has been enabled a couple of days ago on
batta, and the runs are clean:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=batta&br=HEAD
Recovery tests take a bit longer, but that's still OK on this host.
For now, this mode only runs on HEAD.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-04-15 05:24:56 | Re: Why is parula failing? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-15 05:04:12 | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |