On 13/05/2024 00:39, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm. It occurs to me that there *is* a system-specific component to
the amount of WAL emitted during initdb: the number of locales
that "locale -a" prints translates directly to the number of
rows inserted into pg_collation. [...]
Yes. Another
David Rowley writes:
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 15:06, Tom Lane wrote:
>> My best guess is that that changed the amount of WAL generated by
>> initdb just enough to make the problem reproduce on this animal.
>> However, why's it *only* happening on this animal? The amount of
>> WAL we generate
On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 15:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> My best guess is that that changed the amount of WAL generated by
> initdb just enough to make the problem reproduce on this animal.
> However, why's it *only* happening on this animal? The amount of
> WAL we generate isn't all that system-specific.
Thomas Munro writes:
> Oh, it looks like this new build farm animal "skimmer" might be
> reminding us about this issue:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=skimmer=HEAD
> I don't know why it changed,
At this point it seems indisputable that 7d2c7f08d9 is what broke
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:40 PM Anton Voloshin
wrote:
> On 19/01/2024 01:35, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I don't yet have an opinion on the best way to
> > do it though. Would it be enough to add emit_message($node, 0) after
> > advance_out_of_record_splitting_zone()?
>
> Yes, indeed that seems to
Hello, Thomas,
On 19/01/2024 01:35, Thomas Munro wrote:
I don't yet have an opinion on the best way to
do it though. Would it be enough to add emit_message($node, 0) after
advance_out_of_record_splitting_zone()?
Yes, indeed that seems to be enough. At least I could not produce any
more
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 11:35:30AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:47 AM Anton Voloshin
> wrote:
>> I believe there is a small problem in the 039_end_of_wal.pl's
>> "xl_tot_len zero" test. It supposes that after immediate shutdown the
>> server, upon startup recovery,
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:47 AM Anton Voloshin
wrote:
> I believe there is a small problem in the 039_end_of_wal.pl's
> "xl_tot_len zero" test. It supposes that after immediate shutdown the
> server, upon startup recovery, should always produce a message matching
> "invalid record length at .*:
Hello, hackers,
I believe there is a small problem in the 039_end_of_wal.pl's
"xl_tot_len zero" test. It supposes that after immediate shutdown the
server, upon startup recovery, should always produce a message matching
"invalid record length at .*: wanted 24, got 0". However, if the
