From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Yu Shi (Fujitsu)" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add two missing tests in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl |
Date: | 2023-05-08 02:42:12 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KYtxsvOFaG0C8fMtWFQ5YAdo9dtC4si1UuUccGSYTzCQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:33 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 5/6/23 3:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 1:52 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Next steps:
> > =========
> > 1. The first thing is we should verify this theory by adding some LOG
> > in KeepLogSeg() to see if the _logSegNo is reduced due to the value
> > returned by XLogGetReplicationSlotMinimumLSN().
>
> Yeah, will do that early next week.
>
> > 2. The reason for the required file not being removed in the primary
> > is also that it has a physical slot which prevents the file removal.
>
> Yeah, agree. But this one is not an issue as we are not
> checking for the WAL file removal on the primary, do you agree?
>
Agreed.
> > 3. If the above theory is correct then I see a few possibilities to
> > fix this test (a) somehow ensure that restart_lsn of the physical slot
> > on standby is advanced up to the point where we can safely remove the
> > required files; (b) just create a separate test case by initializing a
> > fresh node for primary and standby where we only have logical slots on
> > standby. This will be a bit costly but probably less risky. (c) any
> > better ideas?
> >
>
> (c): Since, I think, the physical slot on the primary is not a concern for
> the reason mentioned above, then instead of (b):
>
> What about postponing the physical slot creation on the standby and the
> cascading standby node initialization after this test?
>
Yeah, that is also possible. But, I have a few questions regarding
that: (a) There doesn't seem to be a physical slot on cascading
standby, if I am missing something, can you please point me to the
relevant part of the test? (b) Which test is currently dependent on
the physical slot on standby?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 盏一 | 2023-05-08 02:56:51 | Re: Proposal for Prototype Implementation to Enhance C/C++ Interoperability in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | 盏一 | 2023-05-08 02:38:29 | Re: Proposal for Prototype Implementation to Enhance C/C++ Interoperability in PostgreSQL |