Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make new crash restart test a bit more robust.

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-19 19:00:38 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> Given this fact pattern, I'll allow the case without a received error >> message in the recovery test. Objections? > > Hearing none. Pushed. > > While debugging this,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make new crash restart test a bit more robust.

On 2017-09-19 19:00:38 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Given this fact pattern, I'll allow the case without a received error > message in the recovery test. Objections? Hearing none. Pushed. While debugging this, I've also introduced a pump wrapper so that we now get: ok 4 - exactly one process

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make new crash restart test a bit more robust.

On 2017-09-19 18:06:29 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-19 16:46:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Have we forgotten an fflush() or something? > > After hacking a fix for my previous theory, I started adding strace into > the mix, to verify this. Takes longer to reproduce, but after filtering