Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> writes:
>> ==~_~===-=-===~_~==
>> pgsql.build/src/bin/pg_verifybackup/tmp_check/log/003_corruption_primary.log
>> ==~_~===-=-===~_~==
>> ...
>> 2021-06-08 16:17:41.706 CEST [51792:9] 003_corruption.pl LOG: received
>> replication command: START_REPLICATION SLOT "pg_basebackup_51792" 0/B000000
>> TIMELINE 1
>> 2021-06-08 16:17:41.706 CEST [51792:10] 003_corruption.pl STATEMENT:
>> START_REPLICATION SLOT "pg_basebackup_51792" 0/B000000 TIMELINE 1
>> (log ends here)
> There seems like some hardware failure?
conchuela has definitely evinced flakiness before. Not sure what's
up with it, but I have no problem with writing off non-repeatable
failures from that machine. In any case, it's now passed half a
dozen times in a row on HEAD, so I think we can say that it's okay
with this test. That leaves jacana, which I'm betting has a
Windows portability issue with the new test.
regards, tom lane
