Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:30:15 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org,
	andrew@dunslane.net, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Add a perl function in Cluster.pm to generate WAL
Message-ID: <ZIvJN/VVQUn6nb8p@paquier.xyz>
References: <CALj2ACU3R8QFCvDewHCMKjgb2w_-CMCyd6DAK=Jb-af14da5eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230615.134015.1421242753635015365.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5JIAoSaMEyP3I27a"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230615.134015.1421242753635015365.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZIvJN/VVQUn6nb8p%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--5JIAoSaMEyP3I27a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 01:40:15PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> +			"CREATE TABLE tt (); DROP TABLE tt; SELECT pg_switch_wal();");
>=20
> 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 =3D> $PostgreSQL::Test::Utils::timeout_default));
> -is($result[1], 'finished', 'check if checkpoint command is not blocked');
> -
> +$node_primary2->advance_wal(1);
> +$node_primary2->safe_psql('postgres', 'CHECKPOINT;');
>=20
> 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;");
>=20
> 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

--5JIAoSaMEyP3I27a
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=bdAY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5JIAoSaMEyP3I27a--