Re: pgsql: Fix handling of WAL segments ready to be archivedduring crash r
От | Kyotaro Horiguchi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Fix handling of WAL segments ready to be archivedduring crash r |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200424.173021.437425683089236305.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Fix handling of WAL segments ready to be archived duringcrash r (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Fix handling of WAL segments ready to be archived duringcrash r
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
At Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:14:37 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 09:59:29AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > And this visibly comes down to the fact that we don't take care enough > > of the timing between the restartpoints done, the startup process > > doing its recycling work and the archiver. The rest of the test > > relies on the reports of pg_stat_archiver a points to wait at as > > published by the archiver process. So there are two things we could > > do here: > > 1) Just remove the unstable parts of the tests (the three ones above), > > and keep coverage based on everything we have using pg_stat_archiver. > > 2) Remove the test entirely, though I would rather have us keep some > > coverage, particularly for primaries as this got broken. > > > > I'd rather do 2), any thoughts? > > Oops, sorry. I sent this message too quickly. I would rather > actually do 1) and keep the major parts of the tests. All the > buildfarm failures are just around the three checks mentioned > upthread. Thanks for your trouble fixing the failures. I think we can reimplement them by waiting pg_stat_archiver.last_failed_wal at least for archive_mode=always case. I'm not sure about the case where archive_mode=on, though. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: