From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 23:10:45 -0500
Message-ID: <1437804.1614917445@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1437508.1614916929@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20210305.115011.558061052471425531.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
<1436448.1614915141@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAH2-Wz=w2yUTvT75gedn8uL_UX=6fPVAyNMGZ7YMLerSMARo0g@mail.gmail.com>
<1437508.1614916929@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I wrote:
> I'd be kind of inclined to remove this test script altogether, on the
> grounds that it's wasting cycles on a function that doesn't really
> do what is claimed (and we should remove the documentation claim, too).
Alternatively, maybe we can salvage the function's usefulness by making it
flush WAL before returning?
If we go that route, then we have the opposite problem with respect
to the test script: rather than trying to make it paper over the
function's problems, we ought to try to make it reliably fail with
the code as it stands.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pg@bowt.ie, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails
In-Reply-To: <1437804.1614917445@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox