From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add contrib/pg_logicalsnapinspect |
Date: | 2025-03-07 04:56:23 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LGV8PME4KfZanF16gE1HDb+nPn06TTxv1OtV0466oJ-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 3:19 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:05 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:42:15PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:47 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree, PFA a patch doing so.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It would be better if you could add a few comments atop the
> > > permutation line to explain the working of the test.
> >
> > yeah makes sense. Done in the attached, and bonus point I realized that the
> > test could be simplified (so, removing useless steps in passing).
> >
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> The new simplified test case can be pretty-formatted as:
>
> init
> begin
> savepoint
> truncate
> checkpoint-1
> get_changes-1
> commit
> checkpoint-2
> get_changes-2
> info_catchange check
> info_committed check
> meta check
>
> IIUC if another checkpoint happens between get_change-2 and the
> subsequent checks, the first snapshot would be removed during the
> checkpoint, resulting in a test failure. I think we could check the
> snapshot files while one transaction keeps open. The more simplified
> test case would be:
>
> init
> begin
> savepoint
> insert(cat-change)
> begin
> insert(cat-change)
> commit
> checkpoint
> get_changes
> info_catchange check
> info_committed check
> meta check
> commit
>
> In this test case, we would have at least one serialized snapshot that
> has both cat-changes and committed txns. What do you think?
>
Your proposed change in the test sounds better than what we have now
but I think we should also avoid autovacuum to perform analyze as that
may add additional counts. For test_decoding, we keep
autovacuum_naptime = 1d in logical.conf file, we can either use the
same here or simply keep autovacuum off.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-03-07 05:05:00 | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2025-03-07 03:58:16 | Re: Doc fix of aggressive vacuum threshold for multixact members storage |