From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fixing WAL instability in various TAP tests
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 10:17:47 -0400
Message-ID: <2502590.1632579467@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2E9D28A3-1B54-446B-AC12-3BF86A2B522A@enterprisedb.com>
References: <32A1FDD1-9C7B-43B1-B3EE-49198DD3F887@enterprisedb.com>
<20210925052151.GA4082552@rfd.leadboat.com>
<2E9D28A3-1B54-446B-AC12-3BF86A2B522A@enterprisedb.com>
Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On Sep 24, 2021, at 10:21 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> 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.
>> That is not the general practice in PostgreSQL tests today. The buildfarm
>> exercises some settings, so we keep the tests clean for those. Coping with
>> max_wal_size=2 that way sounds reasonable. I'm undecided about the value of
>> hardening tests against all possible settings.
> Leaving the tests brittle wastes developer time.
Trying to make them proof against all possible settings would waste
a lot more time, though.
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, mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com, noah@leadboat.com
Subject: Re: Fixing WAL instability in various TAP tests
In-Reply-To: <2502590.1632579467@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