Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much?

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2024-02-07 09:51:18
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KMg03iXE06JBpDHRZn6-WjLtH563+89EE00Ew5Snba0Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 8:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Yeah, I was worried about that. The other idea I have previously
> > thought was to change Alter Subscription to Drop+Create Subscription.
> > That should also help in bringing stability without losing any
> > functionality.
>
> Hm, why would that fix it?
>

Because for new subscriptions, we will start reading WAL from the
latest WAL insert pointer on the publisher which will be after the
point where publication is created.

> More to the point, aren't these proposals just band-aids that
> would stabilize the test without fixing the actual problem?

Yes, but OTOH, this behavior has been since the beginning of logical
replication. This particular test has just exposed it, so keeping BF
failing for this particular test doesn't sound like the best way to
remember it.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-02-07 09:53:36 Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
Previous Message just madhu 2024-02-07 09:47:06 pgjdbc is not working with PKCS8 certificates with password