Message-ID: <d26cdb6e-42c5-ce5a-3f26-54e496873cec@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:25:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: Add two missing tests in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl
Content-Language: en-US
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <2fefa454-5a70-2174-ddbf-4a0e41537139@gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm2raNJrEF_ucDeTV_AygYutVb1bz2SrKO06YdVVG1gf2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <9ab1827c-9a57-8c48-59b2-c5fb62c21be3@gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1KVoAjzT49BwKCih0A+1PE7hm=4PwQ-_VUr9YteFJRB5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JeAZ9MUf3qPAOA5t9=e_vPJSEi6nZ3OygDYi-913eO+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <74f80bc1-6b39-b2a8-c716-98beefb75e0b@gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1LKVJAFfM1wLHr=ni0GD605vOLKsA0hYG6qf8kfdhzBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1LKVJAFfM1wLHr=ni0GD605vOLKsA0hYG6qf8kfdhzBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d26cdb6e-42c5-ce5a-3f26-54e496873cec%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 4/25/23 6:43 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:38 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We are waiting here at a maximum for 10 * $default_timeout (means 3 minutes) before
>> we time out. Would you prefer to wait more than 3 minutes at a maximum?
>>
> 
> No, because I don't know what would be a suitable timeout here.

Yeah, I understand that. On the other hand, there is other places that
rely on a timeout, for example:

- wait_for_catchup(), wait_for_slot_catchup(),
wait_for_subscription_sync() by making use of poll_query_until.
- wait_for_log() by setting a max_attempts.

Couldn't we have the same concern for those ones? (aka be suitable on
slower machines).

> At
> this stage, I don't have a good idea on how to implement this test in
> a better way. Can we split this into a separate patch as the first
> test is a bit straightforward, we can push that one and then
> brainstorm on if there is a better way to test this functionality.
> 

I created a dedicated v4-0002-Add-retained-WAL-test-in-035_standby_logical_deco.patch
just shared up-thread.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com