public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Add a perl function in Cluster.pm to generate WAL
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:30:15 +0900
Message-ID: <ZIvJN/[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CALj2ACU3R8QFCvDewHCMKjgb2w_-CMCyd6DAK=Jb-af14da5eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 01:40:15PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> +			"CREATE TABLE tt (); DROP TABLE tt; SELECT pg_switch_wal();");
> 
> At least since 11, we can utilize pg_logical_emit_message() for this
> purpose. It's more lightweight and seems appropriate, not only because
> it doesn't cause any side effects but also bacause we don't have to
> worry about name conflicts.

Making this as cheap as possible by design is a good concept for a
common routine.  +1.

> -		 SELECT 'finished';",
> -		timeout => $PostgreSQL::Test::Utils::timeout_default));
> -is($result[1], 'finished', 'check if checkpoint command is not blocked');
> -
> +$node_primary2->advance_wal(1);
> +$node_primary2->safe_psql('postgres', 'CHECKPOINT;');
> 
> This test anticipates that the checkpoint could get blocked. Shouldn't
> we keep the timeout?

Indeed, this would partially invalidate what's getting tested in light
of 1816a1c6 where we run a secondary command after the checkpoint.  So
the last SELECT should remain around.

> -$node_primary->safe_psql(
> -    'postgres', "create table retain_test(a int);
> -                                     select pg_switch_wal();
> -                                     insert into retain_test values(1);
> -                                     checkpoint;");
> +$node_primary->advance_wal(1);
> +$node_primary->safe_psql('postgres', "checkpoint;");
> 
> The original test generated some WAL after the segment switch, which
> appears to be a significant characteristics of the test.

Still it does not matter for this specific case?  The logical slot has
been already invalidated, so we don't care much about logical changes
in WAL, do we?
--
Michael


Attachments:

  [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (833B, ../ZIvJN%[email protected]/2-signature.asc)
  download

view thread (16+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Add a perl function in Cluster.pm to generate WAL
  In-Reply-To: <ZIvJN/[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox