Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sync pg_dump and pg_dumpall output - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sync pg_dump and pg_dumpall output
Date
Msg-id ea466b9d-a235-6471-cfb4-f6b9609beaa7@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sync pg_dump and pg_dumpall output  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 03/22/2017 12:10 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Still I agree that we should have tests for both cases.
> Perhaps, though if I recall correctly, we've basically had zero calls
> for fsync() until this.  If we don't feel like we need to test that in
> the backend then it seems a bit silly to feel like we need it for
> pg_dump's regression coverage.
>
> That said, perhaps the right answer is to have a couple tests for both
> the backend and for pg_dump which do exercise the fsync-enabled paths.
>
>


+1

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Trackingwait event for latches)
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size