Dear Kuroda-san,
19.02.2026 05:50, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Dear Alexander,
>
>> Unfortunately, the testing procedure I shared above still produces failures
>> with the patched 009_twophase.pl.
> Hmm, I ran the test for hours, but I could nor reproduce the failure. But let me analyze
> based on your log.
Please look at the attached self-contained script. It works for me (failed
on iterations 6, 12, 2 right now, on my workstation with Ryzen 7900X) --
probably you could adjust number of parallel jobs to reproduce it on your
hardware.
> I have few experience to see the wal_debug output, but background writer seems to
> generate the RUNNING_XACTS record. It's different from my expectation. To confirm,
> did you really enable the injection point? For now 009_twophase can work without
> the `-Dinjection_points=true` but it should be set to avoid random failures.
I think it failed before the injection was set. My log contains:
2026-02-17 07:06:44.313 EET client backend[754908] 009_twophase.pl STATEMENT: PREPARE TRANSACTION 'xact_009_10';
2026-02-17 07:06:44.313 EET client backend[754908] 009_twophase.pl LOG: xlog flush request 0/030227F8; write
0/00000000; flush 0/00000000
2026-02-17 07:06:44.313 EET client backend[754908] 009_twophase.pl STATEMENT: PREPARE TRANSACTION 'xact_009_10';
2026-02-17 07:06:44.313 EET background writer[754333] LOG: INSERT @ 0/03022838: - Standby/RUNNING_XACTS: nextXid 791
latestCompletedXid 788 oldestRunningXid 789; 1 xacts: 789; 1 subxacts: 790
As far as I can see, it corresponds to this place in the test:
SAVEPOINT s1;
INSERT INTO t_009_tbl VALUES (22, 'issued to ${cur_primary_name}');
PREPARE TRANSACTION 'xact_009_10';");
+$cur_primary->wait_for_replay_catchup($cur_standby);
$cur_primary->teardown_node;
$cur_standby->promote;
And as we found out before, wait_for_replay_catchup() before teardown
doesn't help... I can't say for sure, but from my experiments, the test
didn't fail with $cur_primary->stop instead of $cur_primary->teardown_node.
Best regards,
Alexander
