From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Failure of subscription tests with topminnow |
Date: | 2021-08-26 03:54:08 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LsG-HpddKtX_Beq+s4_Ls9RHTnFLUEKKqqveahO+nYYQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:21 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 1:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You have a point but if we see the below logs, it seems the second
> > walsender (#step6) seemed to exited before the first walsender
> > (#step4).
> >
> > 2021-08-15 18:44:38.041 CEST [16475:10] tap_sub LOG: disconnection:
> > session time: 0:00:00.036 user=nm database=postgres host=[local]
> > 2021-08-15 18:44:38.043 CEST [16336:14] tap_sub LOG: disconnection:
> > session time: 0:00:06.367 user=nm database=postgres host=[local]
> >
> > Isn't it possible that pid is cleared in the other order due to which
> > we are seeing this problem?
>
> If the pid is cleared in the other order, wouldn't the query [1] return a false?
>
> [1] - " SELECT pid != 16336 FROM pg_stat_replication WHERE
> application_name = 'tap_sub';"
>
I think it should return true because pid for 16336 is cleared first
and the remaining one will be 16475.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ajin Cherian | 2021-08-26 03:59:22 | Re: Failure of subscription tests with topminnow |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-08-26 03:51:30 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |