| From: | "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Date: | 2022-05-10 03:36:55 |
| Message-ID: | OS3PR01MB6275F9B336AA1FEF4D33E9179EC99@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:23 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:01 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 9, 2022, at 3:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. The patch LGTM. I'll push and back-patch this after the
> > current minor release is done unless there are more comments related
> > to this work.
> > ......
> > Does this issue deserve a test? A small wal_receiver_timeout. Although, I'm
> not
> > sure how stable the test will be.
> >
>
> Yes, the main part is how to write a stable test because estimating
> how many changes are enough for the configured wal_receiver_timeout to
> pass on all the buildfarm machines is tricky. Also, I am not sure how
> important is to test this behavior because based on this theory we
> should have tests for all kinds of timeouts.
Yse, I think we could not guarantee the stability of this test.
In addition, if we set wal_receiver_timeout too small, it may cause timeout
unrelated to this bug. And if we set bigger wal_receiver_timeout and use larger
transaction in order to minimize the impact of machine performance, I think
this might take some time and might risk making the build farm slow.
Regards,
Wang wei
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2022-05-10 03:38:48 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-05-10 03:22:38 | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |