From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: src/test/subscription/t/005_encoding.pl is broken |
Date: | 2017-09-19 15:33:30 |
Message-ID: | 6768.1505835210@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Now, I just had a look at the logs for a failure and a success, and
> one difference can be seen in the subscriber's logs as follows:
> -LOG: logical replication table synchronization worker for
> subscription "mysub", table "test1" has started
> -LOG: logical replication table synchronization worker for
> subscription "mysub", table "test1" has finished
> +WARNING: out of background worker slots
> +HINT: You might need to increase max_worker_processes.
> The "+" portion is for a failure, and I think that this causes the
> subscription to not consume the changes from the publisher which
> explains the failure in the test as the logical worker applying the
> changes on the subscriber-side is not here.
That would indicate that something isn't ever retrying the worker
start; but if that's the case, how is it that we get through the
other subscription tests with my random-failure patch in place?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-19 15:47:09 | Re: Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-19 15:11:31 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add citext_pattern_ops for citext contrib module |