| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Recent pg_rewind test failures in buildfarm |
| Date: | 2025-04-23 04:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | aAhyw32rqSRxaBYH@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 06:22:51AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Yeah, unless that might come from fc415edf8ca but I don't think that's the case.
I've been eyeing this whole area of the code for a few hours to
convince myself on HEAD, and I cannot really find a defect directly
related to it.
I am wondering if we should do a PGSTAT_BACKEND_FLUSH_WAL in the WAL
sender, but the end of any transaction happening in a logical WAL
sender would make sure that this happens on a periodic basis.
Anyway, sorry for make everybody waiting here. I've now removed the
assertion down to v15.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-04-23 06:07:04 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2025-04-23 03:49:01 | Re: Proposal: Filter irrelevant change before reassemble transactions during logical decoding |