Message-ID: <27c8e9ee-fe77-4b2a-a687-50953a01518c@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2026 13:00:00 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: 019_replslot_limit.pl might fail due to checkpoint skipped
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <0b07ead5-a5da-445e-9698-a7d340708bdf@gmail.com>
 <OS9PR01MB121491143DB264B497B55779BF5D12@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <OS9PR01MB121491143DB264B497B55779BF5D12@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27c8e9ee-fe77-4b2a-a687-50953a01518c%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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