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