On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 3:55 PM Ashutosh Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Shveta, > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 12:06 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 5:23 PM Ashutosh Sharma <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > PFA patch addressing all the comments above and let me know for any > > > further comments. > > > > > > > Thank You Ashutosh. Doc looks good to me. Few comments: > > > > 3) > > What is the execution time for this new test? > > I ran it on my VM (which is slightly on the slower side), and the > > runtime varies between ~60 seconds and ~140 seconds. I executed it > > around 10–15 times. Most runs completed in about 65 seconds (which is > > still more), but a few were significantly longer (100+ seconds). > > During the longer runs, I noticed the following entry in pub.log > > (possibly related to Test Scenario E taking more time?). Could you > > please try running this on your end as well? > > > > 2026-03-31 19:45:45.557 IST client backend[145705] > > 053_synchronized_standby_slots_quorum.pl LOG: statement: SELECT > > active_pid IS NOT NULL > > AND restart_lsn IS NOT NULL > > AND restart_lsn < '0/03000450'::pg_lsn > > FROM pg_replication_slots > > WHERE slot_name = 'sb1_slot'; > > > > Just for reference, the complete failover test > > (t/040_standby_failover_slots_sync.pl) takes somewhere between 7 to > > 10sec on my VM. > > > > My concern with this new test is that it's both slow to run and prone > to flakiness, which makes me question whether it's worth keeping. >
will review and share my thoughts. thanks Shveta
