Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Amit Langote > > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > >> Initially, I had naively set wal_consistency_check = all before running > >> make installcheck and then had to wait for a long time to confirm that WAL > >> generated by the gin test indeed caused consistency check failure on the > >> standby with the v1 patch. > > > > wal_consistency_check = gin would have saved you a lot of I/O. > > > >> But I can see Sawada-san's point that there should be some way for > >> developers writing code that better had gone through WAL consistency > >> checking facility to do it without much hassle. But then again, it may > >> not be that frequent to need that. > > Yeah, it should be optional. I imagined providing such an option of > pg_regress or TAP test for the developers.
As far as I know it is possible to have third-party modules that extend the buildfarm client script so that it runs additional tests that the standard ones. You could have a custom module installed in some powerful machine of yours that runs the WAL consistency check and report the results to the buildfarm. A single animal running that test should be enough, right? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
