| From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Silitskiy <a(dot)silitskiy(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(at)dunklau(dot)fr>, Vitaly Davydov <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com" <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |
| Date: | 2026-03-13 12:24:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAKAnmmJ1urVN1XaTe_prd1Gh-cJ9QKEQ1G3zwSmT6SYwJ-mKBw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 8:00 AM Andrey Silitskiy <a(dot)silitskiy(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
wrote:
> Сhecking got_SIGUSR2 alone is not enough. If we received got_STOPPING,
> got_SIGUSR2 will be set only if WalSndCaughtUp is true. This may fail, and
> then the test hangs with the inability to terminate walsender.
>
Got it, thanks
> > Tests:
> > * Should test something other than -1 and 0 (e.g. a positive value)
>
> I'm not sure if it's worth adding a test containing a long timeout wait. I
> can add a test-case with a small positive parameter value (for example,
> 200ms). However, I don't think it will be possible to verify the time
> period for which the walsender was actually terminated. Still, it will be
> limited to checking the fact of termination. What do you think?
>
+1. I don't think we need to measure any times, but we do need to exercise
that whole part of the code, so even a setting of 5ms would be an
improvement. Without it, the tests don't even touch the second half of
WalSndCheckShutdownTimeOut(), which is really the interesting bit.
--
Cheers,
Greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2026-03-13 12:30:27 | Re: IS JSON predicate support for domain base type as JSON/JSONB/BYTEA/TEXT |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2026-03-13 12:18:46 | Re: More speedups for tuple deformation |