| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kuwamura Masaki <kuwamura(at)db(dot)is(dot)i(dot)nagoya-u(dot)ac(dot)jp>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_rewind with cascade standby doesn't work well |
| Date: | 2023-09-26 15:44:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TPwU22RkRUot2FbjRoAK1hPxg+RcCnsFdB_b-CwOTrnCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> >> IMO a test is needed that makes sure no one is going to break this in
> >> the future.
> >
> > You definitely need more complex test scenarios for that. If you can
> > come up with new ways to make the TAP tests of pg_rewind mode modular
> > in handling more complicated node setups, that would be a nice
> > addition, for example.
>
> I'm sorry for lacking tests. For now, I started off with a simple test
> that cause the problem I mentioned. The updated WIP patch 0001 includes
> the new test for pg_rewind.
Many thanks for a quick update.
> And also, I'm afraid that I'm not sure what kind of tests I have to make
> for fix this behavior. Would you mind giving me some advice?
Personally I would prefer not to increase the scope of work. Your TAP
test added in 0001 seems to be adequate.
> BTW, I was able to
> reproduce the assertion failure Kuwamura-san reported, even after applying
> your latest patch from the thread.
Do you mean that the test fails or it doesn't but there are other
steps to reproduce the issue?
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2023-09-26 15:55:08 | Re: [PATCH] Add inline comments to the pg_hba_file_rules view |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2023-09-26 15:33:59 | Re: XLog size reductions: smaller XLRec block header for PG17 |