On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > With above fixes, the test ran successfully for more than a day.
>> >
>> There was a small typo in the previous patch which is fixed in
>> attached.  I don't think it will impact the test results if you have
>> already started the test with the previous patch, but if not, then it
>> is better to test with attached.
> Thanks,  I've already been running the previous one for several hours, and
> so far it looks good.


>  I've tried forward porting it to the WAL patch to
> test that as well, but didn't have any luck doing so.

I think we can verify WAL patch separately.  I am already working on it.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to