On 2020-Apr-10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > 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.
Agreed. Thanks for stabilizing it. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
