On 2020-Apr-10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > 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.
Agreed. Thanks for stabilizing it.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
