From: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: | 2021-08-25 12:24:06 |
Message-ID: | CAFPTHDaWRt99tg=A1urx1tkhQ0GECKc67QV1cWJRH9x9fK2JzQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 9:32 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> IIUC the query[1] used for polling returns two rows in this case: {t,
> f} or {f, t}. But did poll_query_until() returned OK in this case even
> if we expected one row of 't'? My guess of how this issue happened is:
>
> 1. the first polling query after "ATLER SUBSCRIPTION CONNECTION"
> passed (for some reason).
> 2. all wal senders exited.
> 3. get the pid of wal sender with application_name 'tap_sub' but got nothing.
> 4. the second polling query resulted in a syntax error since $oldpid is null.
>
> If the fact that two walsender with the same application_name could
> present in pg_stat_replication view was the cause of this issue,
> poll_query_until() should return OK even if we expected just 't'. I
> might be missing something, though.
>
> [1] "SELECT pid != $oldpid FROM pg_stat_replication WHERE
> application_name = '$appname';"
Yes, the query [1] returns OK with a {f,t} or {t,f}
[1] - "SELECT pid != $oldpid FROM pg_stat_replication WHERE
application_name = '$appname';"
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org | 2021-08-25 12:32:31 | Re: prevent immature WAL streaming |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-08-25 12:23:31 | Re: Failure of subscription tests with topminnow |