Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From shveta malik
Subject Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Date
Msg-id CAJpy0uDyVz-6uMDWONQLRaX9iWdWKBF2QS=UrFysKP3+e4oe_A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby  (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:33 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> A few comments:

Thanks for reviewing.

>
> 1 ===
>
> +        * used to run normal SQL queries
>
> s/run normal SQL/run SQL/ ?
>
> As mentioned up-thread I don't like that much the idea of creating such a test
> but if we do then here are my comments:
>
> 2 ===
>
> +CREATE FUNCTION myschema.myintne(bigint, int)
>
> Should we explain why 'bigint, int' is important here (instead of
> 'int, int')?
>
> 3 ===
>
> +# stage of syncing newly created slots. If the worker was not prepared
> +# to handle such attacks, it would have failed during
>
> Worth to mention the underlying check / function that would get an "unexpected"
> result?
>
> Except for the above (nit) comments the patch looks good to me.

Here is the patch which addresses the above comments. Also optimized
the test a little bit. Now we use pg_sync_replication_slots() function
instead of worker to test the operator-redirection using search-patch.
This has been done to simplify the test case and reduce the added
time.

thanks
Shveta

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Relation bulk write facility
Next
From: jian he
Date:
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes