Re: wal_consistemcy_checking clean on HEAD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: wal_consistemcy_checking clean on HEAD
Date
Msg-id Zhy47Dnj8_aiTWFa@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wal_consistemcy_checking clean on HEAD  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 07:40:57PM -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> That's probably why it's not finding anything now: most people working
> on something that touches WAL already know that testing their patch
> with wal_consistency_checking early is a good idea. Of course it also
> wouldn't be a bad idea to have a BF animal for that, especially
> because we already have BF animals that test things far more niche
> than this.

wal_consistency_checking has been enabled a couple of days ago on
batta, and the runs are clean:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=batta&br=HEAD

Recovery tests take a bit longer, but that's still OK on this host.
For now, this mode only runs on HEAD.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Why is parula failing?