On 26/05/17 20:09, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On 2017-05-26 09:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> If we can find out what the bug is with a repeatable test case we can
>> fix it.
>>
>> Could you provide more details? Thanks
>
> I will, just need some time to clean things up a bit.
>
>
> But what I would like is for someone else to repeat my 100x1-minute
> tests, taking as core that snippet I posted in my previous email. I
> built bash-stuff around that core (to take md5's, shut-down/start-up
> the two instances between runs, write info to log-files, etc). But it
> would be good if someone else made that separately because if that
> then does not fail, it would prove that my test-harness is at fault
> (and not logical replication).
>
Will do - what I had been doing was running pgbench, waiting until the
row counts on the replica pgbench_history were the same as the primary,
then summing the %balance and delta fields from the primary and replica
dbs and comparing. So far - all match up ok. However I'd been running a
longer time frames (5 minutes), so not the same number of repetitions as
yet.
regards
Mark
