| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Date: | 2022-05-10 03:22:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LM5e_gKvmAwYEgpQY=8siboEL53HgDTwtsR612nMA2VA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:01 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022, at 3:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Thanks. The patch LGTM. I'll push and back-patch this after the
> current minor release is done unless there are more comments related
> to this work.
>
> Looks sane to me. (I only tested the HEAD version)
>
> + bool end_xact = ctx->end_xact;
>
> Do you really need a new variable here? It has the same name and the new one
> isn't changed during the execution.
>
I think both ways should be okay. I thought the proposed way is okay
because it is used in more than one place and is probably slightly
easier to follow by having a separate variable.
> Does this issue deserve a test? A small wal_receiver_timeout. Although, I'm not
> sure how stable the test will be.
>
Yes, the main part is how to write a stable test because estimating
how many changes are enough for the configured wal_receiver_timeout to
pass on all the buildfarm machines is tricky. Also, I am not sure how
important is to test this behavior because based on this theory we
should have tests for all kinds of timeouts.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-05-10 03:36:55 | RE: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2022-05-10 02:54:57 | Re: psql now shows zero elapsed time after an error |