At Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:31:59 -0400, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote in > Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]> writes: > >> Sorry for the wrong test file. > >> Checking in lower precision would be sufficient. > > > I noticed that prailiedog failed in another mode. > > Yeah. We have at least four different buildfarm members complaining > about this test case. I took this patch and further lobotomized the > tests by removing *all* dependencies on restart_lsn and > pg_current_wal_lsn(). If anybody wants to put any of that back, > the burden of proof will be on them to show why we should believe > the results will be stable, not for the buildfarm to demonstrate > that they're not.
I think the significant part of the test is wal_status. So I'm not eager to get it back. Thanks! -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
