Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression
Date
Msg-id Y9iQF+Umvql62SFi@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 02:57:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 1) means more test cycles, and perhaps we could enforce compression of
> WAL while on it?  At the end, my vote would just go for 3) and drop
> the whole scenario, though there may be an argument in 1).

And actually I was under the impression that 1) is not completely
stable either in the test because we rely on the return result of
txid_current() with IPC::Run::start, so a checkpoint forcing a flush
may not be able to do its work.  In order to bring all my animals back
to green, I have removed the test.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages