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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
