Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 15:29:35 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: 'Alexander Lakhin' <exclusion@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: Former primary node might stuck when started as a standby
Message-ID: <aafRT3EJOS274tw1@paquier.xyz>
References: <63e55743-669e-4300-a561-7b7ff63723b6@gmail.com>
 <OS9PR01MB12149D4F1A2BC23637688CE4DF56BA@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <045cab6f-4738-417e-b551-01adba44d6c3@gmail.com>
 <c7284102-01fb-4704-8a80-8e65f59fa933@gmail.com>
 <aaU5EiNHfyMb9Bvu@paquier.xyz>
 <TYRPR01MB12156CC5A9AC774B07FA7E40BF57FA@TYRPR01MB12156.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <aaZ77VvZ4Oabp30A@paquier.xyz>
 <493401a8-063f-436a-8287-a235d9e065fc@gmail.com>
 <OS9PR01MB121491FE3BD5D9D7341B83537F57FA@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <aafDsb5snkfkNfdS@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YwT3f7FzlMHbiXyy"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aafDsb5snkfkNfdS@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aafRT3EJOS274tw1%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--YwT3f7FzlMHbiXyy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 02:31:29PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As a whole, it looks like we should just switch the teardown() call to
> a stop() call in the first test with xact_009_10, backpatch it, and
> call it a day.  No need for injection points and no need for GUC
> tweaks.

With a little bit more patience, I have reproduced the same failure as
Alexander using the bgwriter trick, -DWAL_DEBUG and his reproducer
script with parallel runs of the 009 recovery test.  The attached
patch is also proving to work.  The failure happens at the 2nd~3rd
iteration without the fix, and the tests are able to last more than 50
iterations with the fix.

As far as I can see by scanning the history of the test, this is a
copy-pasto coming from 30820982b295 where the tests were initially
introduced, where teardown_node() was copied across the test
sequences.  As we want to check that a promoted standby is able to
commit the 2PC transactions issued on the primary, a plain stop() will
equally work.

I'll push this fix shortly, taking care of one instability.  Nice
investigation on this one, Alexander, by the way.
--
Michael

--YwT3f7FzlMHbiXyy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Jf+D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YwT3f7FzlMHbiXyy--