Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility
Date
Msg-id 11426.1522451462@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility  (Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> On 03/30/18 16:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I did not like the proposed test case too much, particularly not its
>> undocumented API change for check_pg_config,

> Other than that API change, was there something the test case could have
> done differently to make you like it more?

Well, if that'd been properly documented I'd probably have pushed it
without complaint.  But I did wonder whether it could've been folded
into one of the existing tests of pg_switch_wal().  This doesn't seem
like a property worth spending a lot of cycles on testing.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Enhance pg_stat_wal_receiver view to display connected host
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views