On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Michael Paquier writes:
Let's do that please. Merging both was my first feeling when
refactoring this test upthread. Should I send a patch?
>
>>> Sure, hav
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> Let's do that please. Merging both was my first feeling when
>>> refactoring this test upthread. Should I send a patch?
>> Sure, have at it.
> And here you go.
Pushed with a bit of work on
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Michael Paquier writes:
I got the same thought, wondering as well if get_slot_xmins should be
renamed check_slot_xmins with the is() tests moved inside it
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> I got the same thought, wondering as well if get_slot_xmins should be
>>> renamed check_slot_xmins with the is() tests moved inside it as well.
>>> Not sure if that's worth the API ugliness
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> I got the same thought, wondering as well if get_slot_xmins should be
>> renamed check_slot_xmins with the is() tests moved inside it as well.
>> Not sure if that's worth the API ugliness though.
>
> Mmm, doesn't seem l
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks good as far as it goes, but I wonder whether any of the other
>> get_slot_xmins calls need polling too. Don't feel a need to add such
>> calls until someone exhibits a failure there, but I won't be very
>> surpri
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Looks good as far as it goes, but I wonder whether any of the other
> get_slot_xmins calls need polling too. Don't feel a need to add such
> calls until someone exhibits a failure there, but I won't be very
> surprised if someone does.
I got the
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand this.
> The patch attached may explain that better. Your patch added 3 poll
> phases. I think that a 4th is needed. At the same time I have found
> cleaner to put the poll calls into a sm
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 26 June 2017 at 11:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> As long as we are on it, there is this code block in the test:
>> my ($xmin, $catalog_xmin) = get_slot_xmins($node_master, $slotname_1);
>> is($xmin, '', 'non-cascaded slot xmin n
On 26 June 2017 at 11:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As long as we are on it, there is this code block in the test:
> my ($xmin, $catalog_xmin) = get_slot_xmins($node_master, $slotname_1);
> is($xmin, '', 'non-cascaded slot xmin null with no hs_feedback');
> is($catalog_xmin, '', 'non-casca
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 26 June 2017 at 10:09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Craig Ringer
>>> wrote:
$node_standby_1->poll_query_until('postgres', q[SELECT xmin IS NULL
from pg_replication_slots WHE
On 26 June 2017 at 10:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> $node_standby_1->poll_query_until('postgres', q[SELECT xmin IS NULL
>>> from pg_replication_slots WHERE slot_name = '] . $slotname_2 . q[']);
>
>> +1 for avoiding a sl
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> $node_standby_1->poll_query_until('postgres', q[SELECT xmin IS NULL
>> from pg_replication_slots WHERE slot_name = '] . $slotname_2 . q[']);
> +1 for avoiding a sleep call if it is not necessary. Fast platforms
>
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> $node_standby_1->poll_query_until('postgres', q[SELECT xmin IS NULL
> from pg_replication_slots WHERE slot_name = '] . $slotname_2 . q[']);
+1 for avoiding a sleep call if it is not necessary. Fast platforms
would always pay a cost on that,
On 26 June 2017 at 05:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been experimenting with a change to pg_ctl, which I'll post
> separately, to reduce its reaction time so that it reports success
> more quickly after a wait for postmaster start/stop. I found one
> case in "make check-world" that got a failure when
I've been experimenting with a change to pg_ctl, which I'll post
separately, to reduce its reaction time so that it reports success
more quickly after a wait for postmaster start/stop. I found one
case in "make check-world" that got a failure when I reduced the
reaction time to ~1ms. That's the v
16 matches
Mail list logo
