On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 02:57:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > 1) means more test cycles, and perhaps we could enforce compression of > WAL while on it? At the end, my vote would just go for 3) and drop > the whole scenario, though there may be an argument in 1).
And actually I was under the impression that 1) is not completely stable either in the test because we rely on the return result of txid_current() with IPC::Run::start, so a checkpoint forcing a flush may not be able to do its work. In order to bring all my animals back to green, I have removed the test. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
