Re: Win32 Powerfail testing - results

Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>

From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
To: <rbt@rbt.ca>
Cc: <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-02-03T20:06:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
 Rod Taylor allegedly said:
>> I modified the test program slightly to improve the consistency
>> checks. The updated version is attached.
>
> For curiosity sake, I've compiled it and am running it on FreeBSD with
> soft-updates enabled.
>
> A few variable declarations needed to be bumped up to the top of their
> respective function.

I've been doing a fair bit of C++ recently...

> Any change of tossing in a periodic VACUUM or would that throw off the
> results?

Dunno, Tom could best answer that, but a *complete guess* based on piecing
together tidbits of how it all works from various threads here, would be
that it would merely increase the time period during which a powerfail
would be unlikely to cause duplicate rows. Reasoning for this is that
vacuum would be messing with tuples that are already dead.
Please correct me if I'm wrong :-)

Regards, Dave.