Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1Lu2Rp8uzCdgcD3-a_skTgspZxUODZE=m9qT0b+s9Qx=w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? (Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 8:37 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:17 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 7. > > +# check for occurrence of the expected error > > +poll_output_until("replication slot \"$slotname\" already exists") > > + or die "no error stop for the pre-existing origin"; > > > > In this test, isn't it better to check for datasync state like below? > > 004_sync.pl has some other similar test. > > my $started_query = "SELECT srsubstate = 'd' FROM pg_subscription_rel;"; > > $node_subscriber->poll_query_until('postgres', $started_query) > > or die "Timed out while waiting for subscriber to start sync"; > > > > Is there a reason why we can't use the existing way to check for > > failure in this case? > > Since the new design now uses temporary slots, is this test case still > required? > I think so. But do you have any reason to believe that it won't be required anymore? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: