On 9/13/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm curious how much the WAL-recovery aspects of this patch have been > tested, because heap_xlog_clean seems quite broken.
There are quite a few crash recovery tests that one of our QA persons (Dharmendra Goyal) has written. I can post them if necessary. We run these tests very regularly. Apart from these regression crash tests, I had mostly tested by running lot of concurrent clients on UP/SMP machines, crashing and recovering the database. We fixed quite a few issues with these tests. I have tried crashing in middle of UPDATEs/INSERTs/DELETEs and VACUUM/VACUUM FULL. You have apparently > decided to redefine the WAL record format as using one-based rather than > zero-based item offsets, which would be fine if any of the rest of the > code had been changed to agree ... > > I know Heikki changed that when he did the initial refactoring, but not sure why. May be he wanted to make it more consistent. But I don't think its broken because we collect the offsets in one-based format in PageRepairFragmentation, WAL log in that format and redo the same way. Am I missing something ? Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
