| From: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
| Date: | 2025-10-07 09:53:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAFPTHDaeD-LQrgNOmO80taVfPxtFXJh6y4obVaEfSFVhedHqgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Hackers,
In an offline discussion, I was considering adding a TAP test for this
patch. However, testing the pg_sync_replication_slots() API’s wait
logic requires a delay of at least 2 seconds, since that’s the
interval the API sleeps before retrying. I’m not sure it’s acceptable
to add a TAP test that increases runtime by 2 seconds.
I’m also wondering if 2 seconds is too long for the API to wait?
Should we reduce it to something like 200 ms instead? I’d appreciate
your feedback.
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2025-10-07 10:16:52 | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
| Previous Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2025-10-07 09:48:09 | Re: Support getrandom() for pg_strong_random() source |