Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-06-05 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote: On 05/29/2014 07:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: It also implicitly tested the xlog parallel write slots thing, as that is common code to all recovery. During development, I hit a lot of bugs in that patch by

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-06-04 Thread Andres Freund
Hi Jeff, On 2014-05-29 09:39:56 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery? Another thing I'd like to add to the list is wal_level=logical. Not such much the logical decoding side, but that we haven't screwed up normal crash recovery/wal replay. I also

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-06-03 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2014-06-02 09:03:25 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com I think this is useful information and can be even included in core code. I'd like to include

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-06-02 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-06-02 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2014-06-02 09:03:25 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu,

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-06-02 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Hi, On 2014-06-02 09:03:25 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: GNU make does not realize that pg_xlogdump depends on src/backend/access/rmgrdesc/heapdesc.c. (I don't know how or why it has that dependency, but changes

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-06-02 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2014-06-02 10:15:19 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: Also, pg_xlogdump -p insists on being given a start position. I would be nice if it could just find the first file in the given directory. Any reason it can't do that, other than just that no one implemented it yet? It

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-06-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Jeff Janes wrote: GNU make does not realize that pg_xlogdump depends on src/backend/access/rmgrdesc/heapdesc.c. (I don't know how or why it has that dependency, but changes did not take effect with a simple make install) Is that a known issue? Is there someway to fix it? Uh, you're right,

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-30 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 05/29/2014 07:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: It also implicitly tested the xlog parallel write slots thing, as that is common code to all recovery. During development, I hit a lot of bugs in that patch by setting wal_buffers to 32kb (the minimum). Causes more backends to wait for each other,

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-30 Thread Jeff Janes
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote: What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery? Another feature which have interaction with recovery is reduced WAL for Update

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-30 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:39:56AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in 9.4. So far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug for btree, a vacuum bug for btree indexes (with foreign keys, but that is not relevant to the

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-30 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote: What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery? Another

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:39:56AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery? I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in 9.4.  So far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug for btree, a vacuum bug for btree

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Jeff Janes wrote: One thing is that I want to find a way to drive multixact in fast forward, so that the freezing cycle gets a good workout. Currently I can't consume enough of them to make them wrap around within the time frame of a test. IIRC I lobotomized it up by removing the XLogInsert()

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-29 Thread Josh Berkus
On 05/29/2014 09:39 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in 9.4. So far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug for btree, a vacuum bug for btree indexes (with foreign keys, but that is not relevant to the bug), and

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Jeff Janes wrote: One thing is that I want to find a way to drive multixact in fast forward, so that the freezing cycle gets a good workout. Currently I can't consume enough of them to make them wrap around within the time frame of a test. IIRC

Re: [HACKERS] recovery testing for beta

2014-05-29 Thread Amit Kapila
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote: What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery? Another feature which have interaction with recovery is reduced WAL for Update operation: