Re: Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster
Date: 2016-03-08 05:55:03
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQCVU=_VGTJBH03ccE9topatyZi6YSJFtrG4UPUP=b2yw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Here are a couple of ways to address this problem:
> 1) Remove the check before applying the delay
> 2) Increase recovery_min_apply_delay to a time that will allow even
> slow machines to see a difference. By experience with the other tests
> 30s would be enough. The sleep time needs to be increased as well,
> making the time taken for the test to run longer
> 3) Remove all together 005, because doing either 1) or 2) reduces the
> value of the test.
> I'd like 1) personally, I still see value in this test.

So, as doing 1) would be actually equivalent to simply having a master
and checking that its standby replicates correctly, I have been
looking at 2) to see to how long the delay has to be set to make the
test failure-proof. After doing some measurements with hamster, 10s
and 15s have proved to not be enough unfortunately, 20s has not failed
in 10 attempts though. Attached is a patch to bump it to 20s, though I
would not complain if the test is actually removed to accelerate the
runs of this test suite.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix-recovery-delay.patch application/x-patch 1.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-03-08 05:55:52 Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2016-03-08 05:40:57 Re: [HACKERS] How can we expand PostgreSQL ecosystem?