| From: | Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_receivewal starting position |
| Date: | 2021-10-26 09:01:46 |
| Message-ID: | 22424666.6Emhk5qWAg@aivenronan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le mardi 26 octobre 2021, 08:27:47 CEST Ronan Dunklau a écrit :
> Yes, I will try to simplify the logic of the patch I sent last week. I'll
> keep you posted here soon.
I was able to simplify it quite a bit, by using only one standby for both test
scenarios.
This test case verify that after a timeline switch, if we resume from a
previous state we will archive:
- segments from the old timeline
- segments from the new timeline
- the timeline history file itself.
I chose to check against a full segment from the previous timeline, but it
would have been possible to check that the latest timeline segment was
partial. I chose not not, in the unlikely event we promote at an exact segment
boundary. I don't think it matters much, since partial wal files are already
covered by other tests.
--
Ronan Dunklau
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v13-0001-Add-a-test-for-pg_receivewal-following-timeline-.patch | text/x-patch | 4.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-10-26 09:03:14 | Re: Gather performance analysis |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-10-26 09:01:25 | Re: Gather performance analysis |