> On Sep 25, 2021, at 9:00 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
>
>> You may be right, but the conversation about "all possible settings" was
>> started by Noah.
>
> You wrote, "I would expect tests which fail under legal alternate GUC settings
> to be hardened to explicitly set the GUCs as they need, rather than implicitly
> relying on the defaults." I read that as raising the general principle, not
> just a narrow argument about max_wal_size.
In the first draft of my email to Tom, I had language about my inartful
crafting of my original post that led Noah to respond as he did.... I couldn't
quite figure out how to phrase that without distracting from the main point. I
don't think you were (much) offended, but my apologies for any perceived
fingerpointing.
I also don't have a problem with your idea of testing in the build farm with
some animals having the gucs set to minimum values and some to maximum and so
forth. I like that idea generally, though don't feel competent to predict how
much work that would be to maintain, so I'm just deferring to Tom's and your
judgement about that.
My inartful first post was really meant to say, "here is a problem that I
perceive about tap tests vis-a-vis wal files, do people disagree with me that
this is a problem, and would patches to address the problem be welcome?" I
took Tom's response to be, "yeah, go ahead", and am mostly waiting for the
weekend to be over to see if anybody else has anything to say about it.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
