On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:41 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> This means that the WAL replay of that record type has never been tested > >> correctly :-(. > > > This must have been added after mid-Feb this year. I notice there are a > > few places where functionality is tested against temp tables, which may > > mask other non-recoverable issues in this and other rmgrs. We should > > make it standard practice to include only non-temp tables to cover > > functionality other than specific temp table commands. > > I've pointed out before that the regression tests are not particularly > meant to provide an exhaustive test of WAL recovery. In this particular > case, so far as I can tell the bug is only observable with > full_page_writes turned off --- otherwise XLogInsert will invariably > decide to log the full page, because it's going to see a zeroed-out > LSN in the passed-in buffer.
Yes, I was testing with full_page_writes = off at that point. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
