On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 04:02:53AM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote: > I had a concern that some BF animals have not enable the injection point yet > thus coverage might be decreased for them. But it's OK for me to fix > it.
Requiring injection points to be enabled so as we have a strict control over the standby snapshot records does not strike me as a bad requirement in itself. Most of the animals use the switch these days. It's a bit sad if this is not entirely stable in pre-v16 branches, but a stable post-v17 behavior would always be better than an unstable behavior everywhere. > I preferred to add descriptions at the place checking enable_injection_points. > See the updated version. + autovacuum = off + checkpoint_timeout = 1h Why do we need these? An explanation seems in order in the shape of a commit, or these should be removed. Is there a different trick than the one posted at [1] to check the stability of the proposal? I am wondering if I am missing something, or if that's all. Alexander? [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
