Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:33:32 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20200410.113332.337305854143176317.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
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
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <12174.1586467919@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20200408.144452.1031907626229663626.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	<20200409.101339.1252894237035894186.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	<12174.1586467919@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

At Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:31:59 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in 
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> 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.

I think the significant part of the test is wal_status. So I'm not
eager to get it back.

Thanks!

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center