On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > With above fixes, the test ran successfully for more than a day. >> > >> >> There was a small typo in the previous patch which is fixed in >> attached. I don't think it will impact the test results if you have >> already started the test with the previous patch, but if not, then it >> is better to test with attached. > > > Thanks, I've already been running the previous one for several hours, and > so far it looks good. >
Thanks. > I've tried forward porting it to the WAL patch to > test that as well, but didn't have any luck doing so. > I think we can verify WAL patch separately. I am already working on it. -- 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
