Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results
Date
Msg-id 1109.62.136.241.62.1044302805.squirrel@ssl.vale-housing.co.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results  (Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>)
Responses Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
 Rod Taylor allegedly said:
>> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency
>> checks. The updated version is attached.
>
> For curiosity sake, I've compiled it and am running it on FreeBSD with
> soft-updates enabled.
>
> A few variable declarations needed to be bumped up to the top of their
> respective function.

I've been doing a fair bit of C++ recently...

> Any change of tossing in a periodic VACUUM or would that throw off the
> results?

Dunno, Tom could best answer that, but a *complete guess* based on piecing
together tidbits of how it all works from various threads here, would be
that it would merely increase the time period during which a powerfail
would be unlikely to cause duplicate rows. Reasoning for this is that
vacuum would be messing with tuples that are already dead.
Please correct me if I'm wrong :-)

Regards, Dave.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results
Next
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: new procedural language - PL/R