Dear Amit, Bertrand,
> Seeing all these failures, I wonder whether we can reliably test
> active slots apart from wal_level change test (aka Scenario 6:
> incorrect wal_level on primary.).
Hmm, agreed. We do not have good solution to stabilize tests, at least for now.
I've created a patch for PG16 which avoids using active slots in scenario 1, 2, 3,
and 5 like attached. Other tests still use active slots:
* Scenario 6 invalidate slots due to the incorrect wal_level, so it retained.
* 'behaves_ok_' testcase, scenario 4 and 'Test standby promotion...' testcase
won't invalidate slots, so they retained.
* 'DROP DATABASE should drops...' invalidates slots, but it does not related with
xmin horizon, so it retained.
The patch aimed only PG16, but can be created for PG17 as well, if needed.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED