Re: BUG: Former primary node might stuck when started as a standby

Hello Michael,

03.03.2026 08:13, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + autovacuum = off
> + checkpoint_timeout = 1h
>
> Why do we need these? An explanation seems in order in the shape of a
> commit, or these should be removed.
>
> Is there a different trick than the one posted at [1] to check the
> stability of the proposal? I am wondering if I am missing something,
> or if that's all. Alexander?
>
> [1]:https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1cf52d2-c344-4dfd-a918-e5f20ff04fa2@gmail.com

There was also a separate test (independent of bgwriter, autovacuum,
checkpointer,...) at the top of the thread: [1].

FWIW, 004_timeline_switch also failed the past month in the same way [2].
I've just tested 012_subtransactions.pl with the script I proposed at [3]
and it passed 100 iterations (because it performs $node_primary->stop;
before $node_standby->promote;, I suppose).

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b0102688-6d6c-c86a-db79-e0e91d245b1a%40gmail.com
[2] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mandrill&dt=2026-02-07%2006%3A33%3A20
[3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/045cab6f-4738-417e-b551-01adba44d6c3%40gmail.com

Best regards,
Alexander