From: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fixing WAL instability in various TAP tests
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 11:04:29 -0700
Message-ID: <193AC968-C348-4D81-88BC-384560F87500@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210925160039.GA4134968@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: <32A1FDD1-9C7B-43B1-B3EE-49198DD3F887@enterprisedb.com>
<20210925052151.GA4082552@rfd.leadboat.com>
<2E9D28A3-1B54-446B-AC12-3BF86A2B522A@enterprisedb.com>
<2502590.1632579467@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<2B4C64CF-EE3F-474B-9685-6A927E5E49AE@enterprisedb.com>
<20210925160039.GA4134968@rfd.leadboat.com>
> On Sep 25, 2021, at 9:00 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>
>> You may be right, but the conversation about "all possible settings" was
>> started by Noah.
>
> You wrote, "I would expect tests which fail under legal alternate GUC settings
> to be hardened to explicitly set the GUCs as they need, rather than implicitly
> relying on the defaults." I read that as raising the general principle, not
> just a narrow argument about max_wal_size.
In the first draft of my email to Tom, I had language about my inartful crafting of my original post that led Noah to respond as he did.... I couldn't quite figure out how to phrase that without distracting from the main point. I don't think you were (much) offended, but my apologies for any perceived fingerpointing.
I also don't have a problem with your idea of testing in the build farm with some animals having the gucs set to minimum values and some to maximum and so forth. I like that idea generally, though don't feel competent to predict how much work that would be to maintain, so I'm just deferring to Tom's and your judgement about that.
My inartful first post was really meant to say, "here is a problem that I perceive about tap tests vis-a-vis wal files, do people disagree with me that this is a problem, and would patches to address the problem be welcome?" I took Tom's response to be, "yeah, go ahead", and am mostly waiting for the weekend to be over to see if anybody else has anything to say about it.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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: mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com, noah@leadboat.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Fixing WAL instability in various TAP tests
In-Reply-To: <193AC968-C348-4D81-88BC-384560F87500@enterprisedb.com>
* 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