From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much? |
Date: | 2024-02-23 03:47:51 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+oz4GHePO0OFkTP6u1t1xRP0LpPW7MULxH2ufk8r0TdA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 2:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:46 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 08:42, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > To resolve the BF
> > > failure, I still feel, we should just recreate the subscription. This
> > > is a pre-existing problem and we can track it via a separate patch
> > > with a test case targetting such failures.
> >
> > +1 for going with recreation of the subscription, the changes for this
> > are available at [1].
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm1hLZW4H4Z61swK6WPW6pcNcjzXqw%3D6NqG7e-RMtkFaZA%40mail.gmail.com
> >
>
> Tom, and others, does anyone still object to going ahead with an idea
> by just changing the test to recreate the subscription to silence BF
> failures for this test?
>
Seeing no objections, I have pushed the required test changes to silence the BF.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | shveta malik | 2024-02-23 04:13:48 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-02-23 03:23:49 | Re: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR |