| From: | "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <aamelnikov(at)inbox(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] Logical replica crash if there was an error in a function. |
| Date: | 2023-04-05 14:04:39 |
| Message-ID: | da01106d-b50b-6ea7-05e4-469fc48cf82c@inbox.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello!
On 03.04.2023 21:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Anton A. Melnikov" <aamelnikov(at)inbox(dot)ru> writes:
>> Now there are no any pending questions, so moved it to RFC.
>
> I did not think this case was worth memorializing in a test before,
> and I still do not. I'm inclined to reject this patch.
Earlier, when discussing this test, there was a suggestion like this:
> If we were just adding a
> query or two to an existing scenario, that could be okay;
The current version of the test seems to be satisfies this condition.
The queries added do not affect the total test time within the measurement error.
This case is rare, of cause, but it really took place in practice.
So either there are some more reasons why this test should not be accepted that
i do not understand, or i misunderstood something from the above.
Could you help me to figure out, please.
Would be very grateful.
Sincerely yours,
--
Anton A. Melnikov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2023-04-05 14:19:10 | Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-05 14:01:53 | Re: proposal: psql: show current user in prompt |