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

From Chapman Flack
Subject Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility
Date
Msg-id 5AADB130.2020206@anastigmatix.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 03/16/18 17:14, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The attached patch adds the test, and a neccessary extension to check_pg_config
> to allow for extracting values from pg_config.h as opposed to just returning
> the number of regex matches. (needed for XLOG_BLCKSZ.)

Thanks for the review. I notice that cfbot has now flagged the patch as
failing, and when I look into it, it appears that cfbot is building with
your test patch, and without the xlog.c patch, and so the test naturally
fails. Does the cfbot require both patches to be attached to the same
email, in order to include them both? I'll try attaching both to this one,
and see what it does.

This is good confirmation that the test is effective. :)

-Chap

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: SSL passphrase prompt external command
Next
From: Kefan Yang
Date:
Subject: [GSoC 2018] Proposal Draft