Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMemN-0001IV-6Y for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 21:32:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMemM-0005Lp-2H for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 21:32:06 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMemL-0005Li-TA for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 21:32:05 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMemJ-0006Jv-R8 for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 21:32:04 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 039LW0Ah012175; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:32:00 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Kyotaro Horiguchi cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Remove testing for precise LSN/reserved bytes in new TAP test In-reply-to: <20200409.101339.1252894237035894186.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> References: <20200408.144452.1031907626229663626.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <20200409.101339.1252894237035894186.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Kyotaro Horiguchi message dated "Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:13:39 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <12173.1586467919.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:31:59 -0400 Message-ID: <12174.1586467919@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Kyotaro Horiguchi writes: >> Sorry for the wrong test file. >> Checking in lower precision would be sufficient. > I noticed that prailiedog failed in another mode. Yeah. We have at least four different buildfarm members complaining about this test case. I took this patch and further lobotomized the tests by removing *all* dependencies on restart_lsn and pg_current_wal_lsn(). If anybody wants to put any of that back, the burden of proof will be on them to show why we should believe the results will be stable, not for the buildfarm to demonstrate that they're not. regards, tom lane