From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Thu, 04 Mar 2021 23:02:09 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1437803.1614917445.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 23:10:45 -0500
Message-ID: <1437804.1614917445@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1437804.1614917445%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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