Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Replication lag tracking for walsenders - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Replication lag tracking for walsenders
Date
Msg-id 10248.1492879070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Replication lag tracking for walsenders  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> So 6 of 15 critters are getting the walsender.c assertion,
> and those six plus six more are seeing the subtrans.c one,
> and three are seeing neither one.  There's probably a pattern
> to that, don't know what it is.

Ah, got it: skink *is* seeing the subtrans.c assertion, but not
the other.  (I'd forgotten to limit the query to the HEAD branch,
and it was looking at 9.6 for skink.)  hamster, as stated, isn't
giving us a recent report; and crake is running the test but it
doesn't use --enable-cassert, hence no TRAP.

So actually, every single buildfarm member that could be reporting
the subtrans.c crash is doing so.  But only about half of them are
reporting the walsender.c crash.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Replication lag tracking for walsenders
Next
From: Pierre Ducroquet
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing