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.
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 |