On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:33 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On 3/29/22 12:00, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> > >> Thanks, I'll take a look later. > >> > > > > This is still failing [1][2]. > > > > [1] - > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=florican&dt=2022-03-28%2005%3A16%3A53 > > [2] - > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=flaviventris&dt=2022-03-24%2013%3A13%3A08 > > > > AFAICS we've concluded this is a pre-existing issue, not something > introduced by a recently committed patch, and I don't think there's any > proposal how to fix that. >
I have suggested in email [1] that increasing values max_sync_workers_per_subscription/max_logical_replication_workers should solve this issue. Now, whether this is a previous issue or behavior can be debatable but I think it happens for the new test case added by commit c91f71b9dc. > So I've put that on the back burner until > after the current CF. > Okay, last time you didn't mention that you want to look at it after CF. I just assumed that you want to take a look after pushing the main column list patch, so thought of sending a reminder but I am fine if you want to look at it after CF. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LpBFU49Ohbnk%3Ddv_v9YP%2BKqh1%2BSf8i%2B%2B_s-QhD1Gy4Qw%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.