On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 27 August 2016 at 07:36, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think you should add this as part of the default testing for both >>> check and installcheck. I can't imagine why we'd have it and not use >>> it during testing. >>> >> >> The actual consistency checks are done during redo (replay), so not >> sure whats in you mind for enabling it with check or installcheck. I >> think we can run few recovery/replay tests with this framework. Also >> running the tests under this framework could be time-consuming as it >> logs the entire page for each WAL record we write and then during >> replay reads the same. > > I'd like to see an automated test added so we can be certain we don't > add things that break recovery. Don't mind much where or how. > > The main use is to maintain that certainty while in production.
For developers, having extra checks with the new routines in WAL_DEBUG could also be useful for a code path producing WAL. Let's not forget that as well. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
