On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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? >
Yes, thank you for the information. It's a good idea. I'll try it. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers