Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:54:45PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 1:25 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 02:57:30AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed. I split the original 0001 patch into 3 patches as suggested.
> > > Here is the V68 patch set.
>
> Thanks, I have pushed 0001.
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Some comments.
> >
> > Looking at 0002:
> >
> > 1 ===
> >
> > + <para>The following options are supported:</para>
> >
> > What about "The following option is supported"? (as currently only the "FAILOVER"
> > is)
> >
> > 2 ===
> >
> > What about adding some TAP tests too? (I can see that ALTER_REPLICATION_SLOT test
> > is added in v68-0004 but I think having some in 0002 would make sense too).
> >
>
> The subscription tests in v68-0003 will test this functionality. The
> one advantage of adding separate tests for this is that if in the
> future we extend this replication command, it could be convenient to
> test various options. However, the same could be said about existing
> replication commands as well.

I initially did check for "START_REPLICATION" and I saw it's part of
006_logical_decoding.pl (but did not check all the "REPLICATION" commands).

That said, it's more a Nit and I think it's fine with having the test in v68-0004
(as it is currently done) + the ones in v68-0003.

> But is it worth having extra tests which
> will be anyway covered in the next commit in a few days?
>
> I understand that it is a good idea and makes one comfortable to have
> tests for each separate commit but OTOH, in the longer term it will
> just be adding more test time without achieving much benefit. I think
> we can tell explicitly in the commit message of this patch that the
> subsequent commit will cover the tests for this functionality

Yeah, I think that's enough (at least someone reading the commit message, the
diff changes and not following this dedicated thread closely would know the lack
of test is not a miss).

> One minor comment on 0002:
> + so that logical replication can be resumed after failover.
> + </para>
>
> Can we move this and similar comments or doc changes to the later 0004
> patch where we are syncing the slots?

Sure.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com