Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mUAPw-00050t-2k for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:20:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mUAPu-0000sQ-42 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:20:46 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mUAPt-0000sI-SM for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:20:45 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mUAPr-00048w-H5 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 16:20:44 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18PGKd0i2517016; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 12:20:39 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Noah Misch cc: Mark Dilger , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Fixing WAL instability in various TAP tests 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> Comments: In-reply-to Noah Misch message dated "Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:00:39 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2517014.1632586839.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 12:20:39 -0400 Message-ID: <2517015.1632586839@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Noah Misch writes: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 08:20:06AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote: >> You may be right, but the conversation about "all possible settings" wa= s >> started by Noah. > You wrote, "I would expect tests which fail under legal alternate GUC se= ttings > to be hardened to explicitly set the GUCs as they need, rather than impl= icitly > relying on the defaults." I read that as raising the general principle,= not > just a narrow argument about max_wal_size. As did I. > We can discontinue talking about > the general principle and focus on max_wal_size. It is worth stopping to think about whether there are adjacent settings that need similar treatment. In general, it seems like "premature discarding of WAL segments" is something akin to "premature timeout" errors, and we've got a pretty aggressive policy about preventing those. There are a lot of settings that I'd *not* be in favor of trying to be bulletproof about, because it doesn't seem worth the trouble; but perhaps this one is. regards, tom lane