Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:00:20 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
	"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fix 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl race conditions
Message-ID: <Z_c0RJtQ56fVifYT@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <OSCPR01MB149666E4ECE1C38C60E496EDCF5AE2@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1KBiW+wBFiNgPjm5VyKXCKUQ8igkmf4rnS98=P3RnAukg@mail.gmail.com>
 <OSCPR01MB14966BE900F2F29594D5E1FE7F5B52@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <Z_SwcA4GORIIObNS@paquier.xyz>
 <Z/S/1sE64bbM4/kt@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <Z_TB3dKdfgpOLzB1@paquier.xyz>
 <Z/TFbWvjIGwsw5Hk@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <Z_Xjaqw6L60MkiHY@paquier.xyz>
 <Z/YLrTO8/j6muplN@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAA4eK1+Eg-KwLX-UDY-1d0pFj45LiSaGrdrrDYv56YW+fStPLw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OEoVMeZoPVD3bhWc"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1+Eg-KwLX-UDY-1d0pFj45LiSaGrdrrDYv56YW+fStPLw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z_c0RJtQ56fVifYT%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--OEoVMeZoPVD3bhWc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:07:31PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 11:24=E2=80=AFAM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't think of a good reason to have this DEBUG1 as there is no
> predictability of it getting generated even with tests using an
> injection point. OTOH, I don't have any objections to it if you would
> like to proceed with this.

The non-predictability of the event is my reason, as it can be useful
to know this information when grabbing for specific patterns in the
logs between failed and successful run differences.  In short, I'd
like to think that we are OK here, still this information is free to
have and it could be useful if we still have problems.  A custom
message WAL record is overdoing in it a bit, IMO, an elog() with the
LSN returned should be enough.
--
Michael

--OEoVMeZoPVD3bhWc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=c7kd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--OEoVMeZoPVD3bhWc--