On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Amir Rohan wrote:
>> Wouldn't this work?
>> 1) start timer
>> 2) Grab pg_stat_replication.sent_location from master
>> 3) pg_switch_xlog() # I /think/ we want this, could be wrong
>
> For a warm standby, you would want that, but this depends on two factors:
> - The moment master completes archiving of this segment
> - The moment standby restores it.
> On slow machines, those two things become by far the bottleneck,
> imagine a PI restricted on I/O with a low-class SD card in the worst
> case (I maintain one, with a good card, still the I/O is a
> bottleneck).
>
>> 4) Poll slave's pg_last_xlog_replay_location() until LSN shows up
>> 5) stop timer
>
> That's not really solid, there is an interval of time between the
> moment the LSN position is taken from the master and the standby. An
> accurate method is to log/store on master when a given WAL position
> has been flushed to disk, and do the same on slave at replay for this
> LSN position. In any case this is doing to flood badly the logs of
> both nodes, and as the backend cares about the performance of
> operations in this code path we won't want to do that anyway.
>
> To make it short, it seems to me that simply waiting until the LSN a
> test is waiting for has been replayed is just but fine for this set of
> tests to ensure their run consistency, let's not forget that this is
> the goal here.
In terms of features, it seems that this patch has everything it needs
to allow one to design tests to work on both Linux and Windows, and it
is careful regarding CVE-2014-0067. Thoughts about moving that as
"Ready for committer"?
--
Michael