Re: Fixing WAL instability in various TAP tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 9/28/21, 8:17 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should we back-patch 0002?  I'm inclined to think so.  Should
>> we then also back-patch enablement of the bloom test?  Less
>> sure about that, but I'd lean to doing so.  A test that appears
>> to be there but isn't actually invoked is pretty misleading.
>
> A backpatch sounds adapted to me for both patches.  The only risk that
> I could see here is somebody implementing a new test by copy-pasting
> this one if we were to keep things as they are on stable branches.

I found this thread via the Commitfest entry
(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/35/3333/), and I also see that the
following patches have been committed:

        https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=7d1aa6b
        https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=6bc6bd4

However, it looks like there are a couple of other patches upthread
[0] that attempt to ensure the tests pass for different settings of
max_wal_size.  Do we intend to proceed with those, or should we just
close out the Commmitfest entry?

Nathan

[0] https://postgr.es/m/C1D227C2-C271-4310-8C85-C5368C298622%40enterprisedb.com