From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
To: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 019_replslot_limit.pl might fail due to checkpoint skipped
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2026 13:00:00 +0300
Message-ID: <27c8e9ee-fe77-4b2a-a687-50953a01518c@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OS9PR01MB121491143DB264B497B55779BF5D12@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <0b07ead5-a5da-445e-9698-a7d340708bdf@gmail.com>
<OS9PR01MB121491143DB264B497B55779BF5D12@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Dear Kuroda-san,
07.08.2026 09:44, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> IIUC, the workaround is to force the CHECKPOINT after advancing WAL segments.
> Also, we can increase the max_wal_size to avoid the checkpoint due to WAL files.
>
> Please see attached. How do you feel?
>
> [1]: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=partridge&dt=2026-08-06%2018%3A00%3A11
Thank you for paying attention to the issue!
I've tested $checkpoint->query_until() and confirmed that this approach
(which is also used in 4 other tests) eliminates the failure. I haven't
observed an effect of "max_wal_size = 40MB", so I'm not sure about it.
Do you have a scenario in mind, when it could be useful for the test?
Best regards,
Alexander
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: exclusion@gmail.com, kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: 019_replslot_limit.pl might fail due to checkpoint skipped
In-Reply-To: <27c8e9ee-fe77-4b2a-a687-50953a01518c@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox