From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: Add a perl function in Cluster.pm to generate WAL |
Date: | 2024-01-09 04:59:08 |
Message-ID: | ZZzSnBZ3-8zQ-OoC@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 08:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Yes, I've added (VERBOSE) and also cut down the test to catch the failure faster.
> The difference between a successful and a failed run:
> tuples: 1 removed, 15 remain, 0 are dead but not yet removable
> [...]
> tuples: 0 removed, 16 remain, 1 are dead but not yet removable
Yep, it's clear that the horizon is not stable.
> With FREEZE, 10 iterations with 20 tests in parallel succeeded for me
> (while without it, I get failures on iterations 1,2).
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b2a1f7d0-7629-72c0-2da7-e9c4e336b010%40gmail.com
Alexander, does the test gain in stability once you begin using the
patch posted on [2], mentioned by Bertrand?
(Also, perhaps we'd better move the discussion to the other thread
where the patch has been sent.)
[2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d40d015f-03a4-1cf2-6c1f-2b9aca860762@gmail.com
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-01-09 05:19:28 | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-01-09 04:55:07 | Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt |