Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

From: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 03:07:24
Message-ID: CAFPTHDayXWt7Nn9WS2wo1T_OSTHDczwnR5W4R+n=DLE9TEP2hw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?. If required, I can change it accordingly.

regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2021-01-23 03:58:06 Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2021-01-23 02:59:14 Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes