| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: test: avoid redundant standby catchup in 049_wait_for_lsn |
| Date: | 2026-04-18 08:02:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdsUsS6HVt3F-i+VCZEciqBY_HLZ28hbSoh=gwqXQdr=MQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Michael!
On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 12:47 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 08:25:35PM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > The change preserves the same coverage while removing one redundant
> > replay catch-up on the delayed standby. It appears to reduce the test
> > runtime by about 7 seconds, though I have looked into why much of the
> > improvement comes from this change alone.
>
> Alexander may think differently and remove that, but I disagree. The
> test is clearly written so as we want two wait checks to happen, for
> for CREATE FUNCTION, and one for CREATE PROCEDURE. Removing the first
> check to keep only the second one removes its meaning. In short, I
> see nothing wrong to deal with here.
Thank you for your observation. The intention of this test is to
check explicit calls to WAIT FOR LSN. Yes, wait_for_catchup() now
also internally calls WAIT FOR LSN. But checking wait_for_catchup()
is not intention of this test, it's used in awfully a lot of other
places.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2026-04-18 09:06:02 | Re: [PATCH] Add tests for Bitmapset |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2026-04-18 07:58:42 | Re: test: avoid redundant standby catchup in 049_wait_for_lsn |