Re: BUG: Former primary node might stuck when started as a standby

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Subject: Re: BUG: Former primary node might stuck when started as a standby
Date: 2026-03-03 06:13:01
Message-ID: aaZ77VvZ4Oabp30A@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 04:02:53AM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> I had a concern that some BF animals have not enable the injection point yet
> thus coverage might be decreased for them. But it's OK for me to fix
> it.

Requiring injection points to be enabled so as we have a strict
control over the standby snapshot records does not strike me as a bad
requirement in itself. Most of the animals use the switch these days.
It's a bit sad if this is not entirely stable in pre-v16 branches, but
a stable post-v17 behavior would always be better than an unstable
behavior everywhere.

> I preferred to add descriptions at the place checking enable_injection_points.
> See the updated version.

+ autovacuum = off
+ checkpoint_timeout = 1h

Why do we need these? An explanation seems in order in the shape of a
commit, or these should be removed.

Is there a different trick than the one posted at [1] to check the
stability of the proposal? I am wondering if I am missing something,
or if that's all. Alexander?

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1cf52d2-c344-4dfd-a918-e5f20ff04fa2@gmail.com
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-03-03 06:36:02 Re: DOCS - pg_walsummary typo?
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2026-03-03 05:51:23 Re: doc: Clarify that empty COMMENT string removes the comment