Hi,
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 10:10:18AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 4:10 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:48 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 5 ===
> > >
> > > + if (SlotSyncWorker->syncing)
> > > {
> > > - SpinLockRelease(&SlotSyncCtx->mutex);
> > > + SpinLockRelease(&SlotSyncWorker->mutex);
> > > ereport(ERROR,
> > >
> > > errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > > errmsg("cannot synchronize replication
> > > slots concurrently"));
> > > }
> > >
> > > worth to add a test in 040_standby_failover_slots_sync.pl for it?
> >
> > It will be very difficult to stabilize this test as we have to make
> > sure that the concurrent users (SQL function(s) and/or worker(s)) are
> > in that target function at the same time to hit it.
> >
>
> Yeah, I also think would be tricky to write a stable test, maybe one
> can explore using a new injection point facility but I don't think it
> is worth for this error check as this appears straightforward to be
> broken in the future by other changes.
Yeah, injection point would probably be the way to go. Agree that's probably
not worth adding such a test (we can change our mind later on if needed anyway).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
