Re: 039_end_of_wal: error in "xl_tot_len zero" test

From: Anton Voloshin <a(dot)voloshin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 039_end_of_wal: error in "xl_tot_len zero" test
Date: 2024-02-15 09:40:37
Message-ID: c4bfdd5a-fa78-4f52-ab64-a5401e263af9@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello, Thomas,

On 19/01/2024 01:35, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I don't yet have an opinion on the best way to
> do it though. Would it be enough to add emit_message($node, 0) after
> advance_out_of_record_splitting_zone()?

Yes, indeed that seems to be enough. At least I could not produce any
more "xl_tot_len zero" failures with that addition.

I like this solution the best.

> Tolerating the two different messages would weaken the test.

I agree, I also don't really like this option.

--
Anton Voloshin
Postgres Professional, The Russian Postgres Company
https://postgrespro.ru

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2024-02-15 09:46:57 Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-02-15 09:39:31 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby