From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Date: | 2024-02-19 07:53:17 |
Message-ID: | ZdMI7Za/uCheFRqg@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 10:10:18AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 4:10 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:48 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > 5 ===
> > >
> > > + if (SlotSyncWorker->syncing)
> > > {
> > > - SpinLockRelease(&SlotSyncCtx->mutex);
> > > + SpinLockRelease(&SlotSyncWorker->mutex);
> > > ereport(ERROR,
> > > errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > > errmsg("cannot synchronize replication slots concurrently"));
> > > }
> > >
> > > worth to add a test in 040_standby_failover_slots_sync.pl for it?
> >
> > It will be very difficult to stabilize this test as we have to make
> > sure that the concurrent users (SQL function(s) and/or worker(s)) are
> > in that target function at the same time to hit it.
> >
>
> Yeah, I also think would be tricky to write a stable test, maybe one
> can explore using a new injection point facility but I don't think it
> is worth for this error check as this appears straightforward to be
> broken in the future by other changes.
Yeah, injection point would probably be the way to go. Agree that's probably
not worth adding such a test (we can change our mind later on if needed anyway).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-02-19 07:59:53 | Re: backend *.c #include cleanup (IWYU) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-02-19 07:51:45 | Re: Injection points: some tools to wait and wake |