Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZdMI7Za/uCheFRqg@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 10:10:18AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 4:10 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:48 PM Bertrand Drouvot > > <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 5 === > > > > > > + if (SlotSyncWorker->syncing) > > > { > > > - SpinLockRelease(&SlotSyncCtx->mutex); > > > + SpinLockRelease(&SlotSyncWorker->mutex); > > > ereport(ERROR, > > > errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE), > > > errmsg("cannot synchronize replication slots concurrently")); > > > } > > > > > > worth to add a test in 040_standby_failover_slots_sync.pl for it? > > > > It will be very difficult to stabilize this test as we have to make > > sure that the concurrent users (SQL function(s) and/or worker(s)) are > > in that target function at the same time to hit it. > > > > Yeah, I also think would be tricky to write a stable test, maybe one > can explore using a new injection point facility but I don't think it > is worth for this error check as this appears straightforward to be > broken in the future by other changes. Yeah, injection point would probably be the way to go. Agree that's probably not worth adding such a test (we can change our mind later on if needed anyway). Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: