On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> Initially, I had naively set wal_consistency_check = all before running >> make installcheck and then had to wait for a long time to confirm that WAL >> generated by the gin test indeed caused consistency check failure on the >> standby with the v1 patch. > > wal_consistency_check = gin would have saved you a lot of I/O. > >> But I can see Sawada-san's point that there should be some way for >> developers writing code that better had gone through WAL consistency >> checking facility to do it without much hassle. But then again, it may >> not be that frequent to need that.
Yeah, it should be optional. I imagined providing such an option of pg_regress or TAP test for the developers. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
