From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Yu Shi (Fujitsu)" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Test slots invalidations in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl only if dead rows are removed |
Date: | 2024-01-10 04:26:14 |
Message-ID: | ZZ4cZkBLczQISHxq@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 08:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Thus just adding FREEZE is not enough, seemingly. It makes me wonder if
> 0174c2d21 should be superseded by a patch like discussed (or just have
> autovacuum = off added)...
Adding an extra FREEZE offers an extra insurance, so I don't see why
it would be a problem to add it to stabilize the horizon conflicts on
the standbys.
> 09.01.2024 07:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Bertrand, thank you for updating the patch!
>
> Michael, it definitely increases stability of the test (tens of iterations
> with 20 tests in parallel performed successfully), although I've managed to
> see another interesting failure (twice):
> 13 # Failed test 'activeslot slot invalidation is logged with vacuum on pg_class'
> 13 # at t/035_standby_logical_decoding.pl line 227.
Something I'd like to confirm here: you still see this failure with
the patch, but without an extra FREEZE, right? If we do both, the
test would get more stable, wouldn't it?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-10 04:30:23 | Re: Make NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS configurable |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-10 04:22:25 | Re: Fix bogus Asserts in calc_non_nestloop_required_outer |