Re: Anti-critical-section assertion failure in mcxt.c reached by walsender - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Anti-critical-section assertion failure in mcxt.c reached by walsender
Date
Msg-id 113762.1620419400@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Anti-critical-section assertion failure in mcxt.c reached by walsender  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Anti-critical-section assertion failure in mcxt.c reached by walsender
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Isn't this a good reason to have at least some tests run with fsync=on?

Why?

I can certainly see an argument for running some buildfarm animals
with fsync on (for all tests).  I don't see a reason for forcing
them all to run some tests that way; and if I were going to do that,
I doubt that 008_fsm_truncation.pl would be the one I would pick.
I think it's nothing but sloppiness that that one is out of step with
all the rest.

IMO, if a buildfarm owner sets fsync = off, they mean off.
They don't mean "maybe".

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: batch fdw insert bug (Postgres 14)