On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 07:37:49PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Yes, there should be some tests running for these stats,
> so if it's possible to enable fsync on one or a few animals, that
> will be better than nothing.
I have just done that on batta that only tests HEAD, that's a start.
--
Michael
> > 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.
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
> The code in xlog.c filters out the syncs for WAL_SYNC_METHOD_OPEN and
> WAL_SYNC_METHOD_OPEN_DSYNC, wouldn't it be more consistent to do the
> same in the code and the SQL test, using an IN clause with the two
> values that block the syncs rather than a NOT IN clause with the three
> values that
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 04:39:45PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Also, The documentation for pg_stat_wal already makes this point clear
> in [0] that "wal_sync is only
> incremented when the wal_sync_method is either fdatasync, fsync or
> fsync_writethrough".
>
> Perhaps, the same clarification will
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 06:45:36PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> IIUC, this is only an issue for wal syncing
Yes, good catch. I have missed this effect of issue_xlog_fsync(),
which has two callers. The first one in XLogWrite() never happens if
wal_sync_method is open_sync or open_datasync. The se
> Hmm, that's a little nasty, because it's not showing up in the
> buildfarm. It appears from a little testing that the issue only
> manifests if you have fsync = on, which we generally don't on
> buildfarm animals.
right, "make check" does not encounter this because it runs
with fsync=off, as I
Sami Imseih writes:
> When running "make installcheck" on my mac, I ran into a failure:
> @@ -1459,7 +1459,7 @@
> OR :io_sum_wal_normal_after_fsyncs > :io_sum_wal_normal_before_fsyncs;
> ?column?
> --
> - t
> + f
> (1 row)
Hmm, that's a little nasty, because it's not showing up in t
Hi,
When running "make installcheck" on my mac, I ran into a failure:
"""
@@ -1459,7 +1459,7 @@
OR :io_sum_wal_normal_after_fsyncs > :io_sum_wal_normal_before_fsyncs;
?column?
--
- t
+ f
(1 row)
-- Change the tablespace so that the table is rewritten directly, then SELECT
"""
whic
