Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?
Date: 2021-01-23 04:15:58
Message-ID: CAA4eK1Lu2Rp8uzCdgcD3-a_skTgspZxUODZE=m9qT0b+s9Qx=w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 8:37 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:17 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > 7.
> > +# check for occurrence of the expected error
> > +poll_output_until("replication slot \"$slotname\" already exists")
> > + or die "no error stop for the pre-existing origin";
> >
> > In this test, isn't it better to check for datasync state like below?
> > 004_sync.pl has some other similar test.
> > my $started_query = "SELECT srsubstate = 'd' FROM pg_subscription_rel;";
> > $node_subscriber->poll_query_until('postgres', $started_query)
> > or die "Timed out while waiting for subscriber to start sync";
> >
> > Is there a reason why we can't use the existing way to check for
> > failure in this case?
>
> Since the new design now uses temporary slots, is this test case still
> required?
>

I think so. But do you have any reason to believe that it won't be
required anymore?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2021-01-23 04:26:38 Re: Is Recovery actually paused?
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2021-01-23 03:58:06 Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits