| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilize and shorten test_checksums/013_rewind test |
| Date: | 2026-09-18 12:51:04 |
| Message-ID: | ED578DEE-5699-4077-BE7F-5AE84312359D@yesql.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 18 Sep 2026, at 12:26, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I encountered two problems with the test_checksums/013_rewind test:
> ...
> I spent some time fixing these problems with the help of an LLM.
Thanks!
> Problem #1:
>
> We wait for the primary's insert LSN in three places, but the primary
> might be idle and not have sent it yet:
Makes sense.
-$node_a->wait_for_catchup($node_b, 'replay', $node_a->lsn('insert'));
+# Backup completion has flushed the required WAL.
+$node_a->wait_for_catchup($node_b, 'replay', $node_a->lsn('flush'));
In these cases, couldn't we just wait for the replay LSN, ie the default for
wait_for_catchup?
> Problem #2
>
> ($stdout, $stderr) = run_command(
> [
> 'pg_waldump',
> '-p' => $node_a->data_dir . '/pg_wal',
> '-t' => 1,
> '-s' => $shutdown_ckpt,
> '-n' => 1,
> ]);
> like($stdout, qr/CHECKPOINT_SHUTDOWN/,
> 'last common checkpoint is a shutdown checkpoint');
>
> We don't specifiy which WAL file that pg_waldump() will use, then
> pg_waldump select first WAL data available in the directory. Then, it
> might select a WAL file whose header is not initialized yet (a
> preallocated WAL file).
Nice find, this patch seems quite straightforward.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-09-18 12:54:51 | Re: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2026-09-18 12:28:55 | Re: Race conditions in logical decoding |