At Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:31:59 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Sorry for the wrong test file.
> >> Checking in lower precision would be sufficient.
>
> > I noticed that prailiedog failed in another mode.
>
> Yeah. We have at least four different buildfarm members complaining
> about this test case. I took this patch and further lobotomized the
> tests by removing *all* dependencies on restart_lsn and
> pg_current_wal_lsn(). If anybody wants to put any of that back,
> the burden of proof will be on them to show why we should believe
> the results will be stable, not for the buildfarm to demonstrate
> that they're not.
I think the significant part of the test is wal_status. So I'm not
eager to get it back.
Thanks!
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
