Re: BUG #18988: DROP SUBSCRIPTION locks not-yet-accessed database

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 12:55 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 11:36 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 9:04 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This change will run not just the newly added test, but the entire
> > > regression suite under the new configuration. Should we consider
> > > moving this test elsewhere such as into the 100_bugs:
> > > diff --git a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/t/002_pg_upgrade.pl
> > > b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/t/002_pg_upgrade.pl
> > > index 4b5e895809b..284b2ef07e0 100644
> > > --- a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/t/002_pg_upgrade.pl
> > > +++ b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/t/002_pg_upgrade.pl
> > > @@ -225,6 +225,8 @@ $oldnode->init(%old_node_params);
> > >  # Override log_statement=all set by Cluster.pm.  This avoids large amounts
> > >  # of log traffic that slow this test down even more when run under valgrind.
> > >  $oldnode->append_conf('postgresql.conf', 'log_statement = none');
> > > +$oldnode->append_conf('postgresql.conf', 'wal_level = replica');
> > > +$oldnode->append_conf('postgresql.conf', 'max_wal_senders = 1');
> >
> > Yeah even I didn't like it to set wal_level to replica only for this
> > test, it makes sense to write it in 100_bugs.pl, here is a updated
> > patch for HEAD only, I have also updated the commit message, once we
> > get agreement on this I will prepare a backbranch patches.
> >
>
> Updated test case, cleanup reported by 1) pgperltidy 2) dropped the
> database post test and 3) changed subscription name
>

Looks mostly good. How about slightly changing the comment as in attached?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.