On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Great, thanks.  0001 looks good to me now, so committed.
>>>> Committed 0002.
>>> Here are some initial review thoughts on 0003 based on a first read-through.
>> It seems like a good test to do with this patch would be to set up a
>> pgbench test on the master with a hash index replacing the usual btree
>> index.  Then, set up a standby and run a read-only pgbench on the
>> standby while a read-write pgbench test runs on the master.  Maybe
>> you've already tried something like that?
> I also think so and apart from that I think it makes sense to perform
> recovery test by Jeff Janes tool and probably tests with
> wal_consistency_check. These tests are already running from past seven
> hours or so and I will keep them running for the whole night to see if
> there is any discrepancy.

We didn't found any issue with the above testing.

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