| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Alexander Lakhin' <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: 019_replslot_limit.pl might fail due to checkpoint skipped |
| Date: | 2026-08-12 03:06:10 |
| Message-ID: | OS9PR01MB12149B9B394A35D73E4D635F6F5DC2@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Alexander,
> I've tested $checkpoint->query_until() and confirmed that this approach
> (which is also used in 4 other tests) eliminates the failure.
Thanks!
> I haven't
> observed an effect of "max_wal_size = 40MB", so I'm not sure about it.
> Do you have a scenario in mind, when it could be useful for the test?
Actually the test can pass without increasing the max_wal_size. Ultimately, we do
not have to set both min_wal_size and max_wal_size: we enforce the CHECKPOINT
here. My fresh brain feels that such unnecessary settings can be avoided, done
in v2.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Stablize-019_replslot_limit.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-08-12 03:12:08 | Fix small psql slash option leaks |
| Previous Message | Shinya Kato | 2026-08-12 03:00:47 | Re: Track skipped tables during autovacuum and autoanalyze |