On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:23 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:01 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 9, 2022, at 3:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. The patch LGTM. I'll push and back-patch this after the
> > current minor release is done unless there are more comments related
> > to this work.
> > ......
> > Does this issue deserve a test? A small wal_receiver_timeout. Although, I'm
> not
> > sure how stable the test will be.
> >
>
> Yes, the main part is how to write a stable test because estimating
> how many changes are enough for the configured wal_receiver_timeout to
> pass on all the buildfarm machines is tricky. Also, I am not sure how
> important is to test this behavior because based on this theory we
> should have tests for all kinds of timeouts.
Yse, I think we could not guarantee the stability of this test.
In addition, if we set wal_receiver_timeout too small, it may cause timeout
unrelated to this bug. And if we set bigger wal_receiver_timeout and use larger
transaction in order to minimize the impact of machine performance, I think
this might take some time and might risk making the build farm slow.
Regards,
Wang wei