| From: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Failure of subscription tests with topminnow |
| Date: | 2021-08-26 03:51:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAFPTHDaDWuQbQp4FRFjNH_JVt89uSwe1w6Dga0OxhLQJ-NnTOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 1:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> You have a point but if we see the below logs, it seems the second
> walsender (#step6) seemed to exited before the first walsender
> (#step4).
>
> 2021-08-15 18:44:38.041 CEST [16475:10] tap_sub LOG: disconnection:
> session time: 0:00:00.036 user=nm database=postgres host=[local]
> 2021-08-15 18:44:38.043 CEST [16336:14] tap_sub LOG: disconnection:
> session time: 0:00:06.367 user=nm database=postgres host=[local]
>
> Isn't it possible that pid is cleared in the other order due to which
> we are seeing this problem?
If the pid is cleared in the other order, wouldn't the query [1] return a false?
[1] - " SELECT pid != 16336 FROM pg_stat_replication WHERE
application_name = 'tap_sub';"
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-08-26 03:51:30 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-08-26 03:24:48 | Re: prevent immature WAL streaming |