On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 10:44:59AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > I actually originally had it this way, but for some reason > felt it would be better to be explicit about the methods we want to test > rather > than not test. I can't think of a very compelling reason to go either way, so > v2 > LGTM.
I will proceed with v2 then, thanks. > what do you think of this? I think we should set fsync = on > at least for the part of the test that proceeds the 2 checkpoints and > set if back to off at the end of the tests for fsync stats. It is concerning > the tests for the fsync stats are not being exercised in > the buildfarm. One thing I fear here is the impact for animals with little capacity, like PIs and the like. On the other hand, I could just switch one of my animals to use fsync = on on at least one branch. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
