On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 10:44:59AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I actually originally had it this way, but for some reason
> felt it would be better to be explicit about the methods we want to test rather
> than not test. I can't think of a very compelling reason to go either way, so v2
> LGTM.
I will proceed with v2 then, thanks.
> what do you think of this? I think we should set fsync = on
> at least for the part of the test that proceeds the 2 checkpoints and
> set if back to off at the end of the tests for fsync stats. It is concerning
> the tests for the fsync stats are not being exercised in
> the buildfarm.
One thing I fear here is the impact for animals with little capacity,
like PIs and the like. On the other hand, I could just switch one of
my animals to use fsync = on on at least one branch.
--
Michael
