On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> - In recovery tests (src/test/recovery/t), I've added wal_consistency >>>> parameter in the existing scripts. This feature doesn't change the >>>> expected output. If there is any inconsistency, it can be verified in >>>> corresponding log file. >>> >>> I am afraid that just generating a WARNING message is going to be >>> useless for the buildfarm. If we want to detect errors, we could for >>> example have an additional GUC to trigger an ERROR or a FATAL, taking >>> down the cluster, and allowing things to show in red on a platform. >>> >> Yes, we can include an additional GUC to trigger an ERROR for any >> inconsistency. > > I'd like to hear extra opinions about that, but IMO just having an > ERROR would be fine for the first implementation. Once you've bumped > into an ERROR, you are likely going to fix it first. >
+1 for just an ERROR to detect the inconsistency. I think adding additional GUC just to raise error level doesn't seem to be advisable. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
