On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 04:30:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I can certainly see an argument for running some buildfarm animals > with fsync on (for all tests). I don't see a reason for forcing > them all to run some tests that way; and if I were going to do that, > I doubt that 008_fsm_truncation.pl would be the one I would pick. > I think it's nothing but sloppiness that that one is out of step with > all the rest.
My take on this point is that using the configuration that can be enforced for each animal would be enough. I manage a small animal and this stuff can take a while to flush some data. Worth noting that using fsync=on has not been discussed on the original thread, and I don't see why that's necessary: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CABOikdNr5vKucqyZH9s1Mh0XebLs_jRhKv6eJfNnD2wxTn%3D_9A%40mail.gmail.com So I would vote for removing it in this case. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
