Re: subscriptioncheck failure

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Pirotte <dpirotte(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
Subject: Re: subscriptioncheck failure
Date: 2021-05-17 05:10:08
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+pM6jQW=1OP_sMYHwXUYsrY3wavP1qCAJ9=4d7zt6zXg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 9:06 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 7:06 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 4:41 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Few comments:
> 1.
> + # Ensure a transactional logical decoding message shows up on the slot
> + $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "ALTER SUBSCRIPTION tap_sub DISABLE");
>
> After you have encapsulated this command in the function, the above
> comment doesn't make sense because we do this for both transactional
> and non-transactional messages. I suggest we can change it to
> something like: "This is done to ensure a logical decoding message is
> shown up on the slot".
>
> 2.
> +# Setup the subscription before checking pg_logical_slot_peek_binary_changes
> +sub setup_subscription
>
> I think here the functionality is more for the catchup of
> subscription, so it might be better to name the function as
> subscription_catchup or catchup_subscription. I think you can expand
> the comments atop this function a bit as suggested by Michael.
>

One more point:
+ $node_publisher->wait_for_catchup('tap_sub');
+
+ # Ensure a transactional logical decoding message shows up on the slot
+ $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "ALTER SUBSCRIPTION tap_sub DISABLE");
+
+ # wait for the replication connection to drop from the publisher
+ $node_publisher->poll_query_until('postgres',
+ "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pg_catalog.pg_replication_slots WHERE
slot_name = 'tap_sub' AND active='f'", 1);

In the above sequence, wait_for_catchup will query pg_stat_replication
whereas after disabling subscription we are checking
pg_replication_slots. I understand from your explanation why we can't
rely on pg_stat_replication after DISABLE but it might be better to
check that the slot is active before disabling it. I think currently,
the test assumes that, isn't it better to have an explicit check for
that?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2021-05-17 05:16:24 Re: Race condition in recovery?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-05-17 04:52:54 Re: Typo in README.barrier