| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: A failure in t/038_save_logical_slots_shutdown.pl |
| Date: | 2024-01-16 06:43:04 |
| Message-ID: | TY3PR01MB9889E69C5D06A56E0AFDE0E4F5732@TY3PR01MB9889.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Amit, Bharath,
> This is a more strict check because it is possible that even if the
> latest confirmed_flush location is not persisted there is no
> meaningful decodable WAL between whatever the last confirmed_flush
> location saved on disk and the shutdown_checkpoint record.
> Kuroda-San/Vignesh, do you have any suggestion on this one?
I think it should be as testcase explicitly. There are two reasons:
* e0b2eed is a commit for backend codes, so it should be tested by src/test/*
files. Each src/bin/XXX/*.pl files should test only their executable.
* Assuming that the feature would be broken. In this case 003_logical_slots.pl
would fail, but we do not have a way to recognize on the build farm.
038_save_logical_slots_shutdown.pl helps to distinguish the case.
Based on that, I think it is OK to add advance_wal() and comments, like Bharath's patch.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2024-01-16 06:50:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Allow INSTEAD OF DELETE triggers to modify the tuple for RETURNING |
| Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2024-01-16 06:30:49 | Re: [PATCH] Exponential backoff for auth_delay |