| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: failure in 019_replslot_limit |
| Date: | 2023-04-05 18:55:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20230405185514.bbietghwyh7v4zl4@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-04-05 11:48:53 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Note that a checkpoint started at "17:50:23.787", but didn't finish before the
> database was shut down. As far as I can tell, this can not be caused by
> checkpoint_timeout, because by the time we get to invalidating replication
> slots, we already did CheckPointBuffers(), and that's the only thing that
> delays based on checkpoint_timeout.
>
> ISTM that this indicates that checkpointer got stuck after signalling
> 344783.
>
> Do you see any other explanation?
This all sounded vaguely familiar. After a bit bit of digging I found this:
https://postgr.es/m/20220223014855.4lsddr464i7mymk2%40alap3.anarazel.de
Which seems like it plausibly explains the failed test?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-05 18:55:50 | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-05 18:48:53 | failure in 019_replslot_limit |