On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Amit Langote
>> > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> >> Initially, I had naively set wal_consistency_check = all before running
>> >> make installcheck and then had to wait for a long time to confirm that WAL
>> >> generated by the gin test indeed caused consistency check failure on the
>> >> standby with the v1 patch.
>> >
>> > wal_consistency_check = gin would have saved you a lot of I/O.
>> >
>> >> But I can see Sawada-san's point that there should be some way for
>> >> developers writing code that better had gone through WAL consistency
>> >> checking facility to do it without much hassle.  But then again, it may
>> >> not be that frequent to need that.
>> Yeah, it should be optional. I imagined providing such an option of
>> pg_regress or TAP test for the developers.
> As far as I know it is possible to have third-party modules that extend
> the buildfarm client script so that it runs additional tests that the
> standard ones.  You could have a custom module installed in some
> powerful machine of yours that runs the WAL consistency check and report
> the results to the buildfarm.  A single animal running that test should
> be enough, right?

Yes, thank you for the information. It's a good idea. I'll try it.


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

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

Reply via email to