| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |