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

From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Subject: Re: BUG: Former primary node might stuck when started as a standby
Date: 2026-03-04 09:00:00
Message-ID: 4becfd72-014c-40a7-b2fc-d41e92b1856b@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

04.03.2026 10:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Did you find any buildfarm failures involving 028? I cannot get
> excited in changing tests where nothing has happened, and this test
> looks OK as we don't do a switchover. For 004, we have at least one
> failure recorded based on what you said. That's a fact sufficient for
> me to fix things, for 004.

No, I didn't. I agree that eliminating already known failures makes more
sense. Anyway, we'll have the thread which explain why such failures can
happen.

Best regards,
Alexander

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2026-03-04 09:18:49 Re: Add "format" target to make and ninja to run pgindent and pgperltidy
Previous Message Chao Li 2026-03-04 08:59:41 Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)