From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
cc: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Timing-sensitive case in src/test/recovery TAP tests
In-reply-to: 
 <CAB7nPqTuFCTyDJCNpYZ-MtHhBasjYOzDYkHcn9S1PQBc5MdHtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8962.1498425057@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAMsr+YELP+j4OypCoYtRL_Z-KoYrDc+RdqX56mvTBTPqL_55VA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqSZ=YZJeW7m73m+03faPvwykRaQ13fkTOJaV8sym+us_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <17089.1498442945@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAMsr+YE6JEuUAmT657Zq+ix_+6miY3psB7tDZnw8-43LdsB69A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqSfqN_Y16nLSMRVfDM7OAnWJ7mOCxgQZ_zip95sNjZ_Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMsr+YEbb5rxgZRfCdUbUJwF7rEmbmSVKTbyqYBj48rOARhO=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqRapQBG8BSUR=UkShJDXCyPYD+GcBNmgSzu4Lw==UzAeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <14061.1498502642@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAB7nPqTuFCTyDJCNpYZ-MtHhBasjYOzDYkHcn9S1PQBc5MdHtw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:36:51 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18435.1502228036.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:33:56 -0400
Message-ID: <18436.1502228036@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Looks good as far as it goes, but I wonder whether any of the other
>> get_slot_xmins calls need polling too.  Don't feel a need to add such
>> calls until someone exhibits a failure there, but I won't be very
>> surprised if someone does.

And behold, we have here
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=3Dnightjar&dt=3D201=
7-08-08%2020%3A54%3A09

#   Failed test 'xmin of cascaded slot non-null with hs feedback'
#   at t/001_stream_rep.pl line 224.
#          got: ''
#     expected: anything else

That's one of only four calls lacking a preceding wait_slot_xmins call.
The ones at lines 173 and 177 seem safe because nothing has happened yet.
I think the one at line 300 should be safe because the standby_2 server is
shut down at that point, but is there any way that the standby_1's view
hasn't updated by the time that happens?

> I got the same thought, wondering as well if get_slot_xmins should be
> renamed check_slot_xmins with the is() tests moved inside it as well.
> Not sure if that's worth the API ugliness though.

Mmm, doesn't seem like that's worth doing, but I'm half tempted to merge
wait_slot_xmins into get_slot_xmins so you can't skip it ...

			regards, tom lane


--=20
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers