On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:13 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Dear Amit, Bharath, > > > This is a more strict check because it is possible that even if the > > latest confirmed_flush location is not persisted there is no > > meaningful decodable WAL between whatever the last confirmed_flush > > location saved on disk and the shutdown_checkpoint record. > > Kuroda-San/Vignesh, do you have any suggestion on this one? > > I think it should be as testcase explicitly. There are two reasons: > > * e0b2eed is a commit for backend codes, so it should be tested by src/test/* > files. Each src/bin/XXX/*.pl files should test only their executable. > * Assuming that the feature would be broken. In this case 003_logical_slots.pl > would fail, but we do not have a way to recognize on the build farm. > 038_save_logical_slots_shutdown.pl helps to distinguish the case.
+1 to keep 038_save_logical_slots_shutdown.pl as-is. > Based on that, I think it is OK to add advance_wal() and comments, like > Bharath's patch. Thanks. I'll wait a while and then add it to CF to not lose it in the wild. -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com