Re: archive modules - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: archive modules
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa+Sp9w2CAkEJ4MuD2sAjePOmVWiYh1yDvVx4P--4ZbUg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: archive modules  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: archive modules  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:27 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 02:11:18PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Committed. I'm going to be 0% surprised if the buildfarm turns pretty
> > colors, but I don't know how to know what it's going to be unhappy
> > about except by trying it, so here goes.
>
> Thanks!  I'll keep an eye on the buildfarm and will send any new patches
> that are needed.

Andres just pointed out to me that thorntail is unhappy:

https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=thorntail&dt=2022-02-03%2019%3A54%3A42

It says:

==~_~===-=-===~_~==
pgsql.build/contrib/basic_archive/log/postmaster.log
==~_~===-=-===~_~==
2022-02-03 23:17:49.019 MSK [1253623:1] FATAL:  WAL archival cannot be
enabled when wal_level is "minimal"

The notes for the machine say:

UBSan; force_parallel_mode; wal_level=minimal; OS bug breaks truncate()

So apparently we need to either skip this test when wal_level=minimal,
or force a higher wal_level to be used for this particular test. Not
sure what the existing precedents are, if any.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: support for CREATE MODULE
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: archive modules