On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 09:33:42AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Oops, sorry. I was monitoring the buildfarm yesterday and did not
> notice any failures. The attached should fix the problem. Does that
> look fine?
loach has just turned red again, so I have committed this fix to cool
it down.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 07:25:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> and if you look at the test script, there is no sort of wait for the
> creation of "test1" to propagate to the slave before we try to query
> it on the slave. We'd have seen this fall over soon enough with or
> without your commit.
Oops,
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:02 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Use condition variables to wait for checkpoints.
> BF animal "loach" is blaming a recoveryCheck failure in
> 016_min_conistency on this commit. I wonder if there some timing
> dependency in that new test that broke w
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:02 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Use condition variables to wait for checkpoints.
BF animal "loach" is blaming a recoveryCheck failure in
016_min_conistency on this commit. I wonder if there some timing
dependency in that new test that broke when CHECKPOINT became faster.
