On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 3:29 AM Michael Paquier <
michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > Yeah, that's what I think too. The unintentional omission of a
> > pre-shutdown delay in the 046 test has exposed some pre-existing
> > fragility in pg_logical_slot_get_changes(). So I'm not in favor
> > of changing 046 till we understand this better.
>
> Yes, better to understand what's going on before changing the test,
> and perhaps change 046 so as it provide stable coverage for this case,
> even if discovered accidentally.
>
> So, is it only pg_logical_slot_get_changes_guts() that's messed up in
> this context, because XLogDecodeNextRecord() is trying to read pages
> as it has a logic too permissive? How did any of you reproduce the
> failure? Just by running the test in a loop? It is one of these
> patterns where a hardcoded sleep should do the trick and help with a
> bisect.
Personally I just run the test in the loop. It takes about ~30 times to reproduce. Works both with -O0 and -O2.
cd src/test/recovery
while PROVE_TESTS="t/046_checkpoint_logical_slot.pl t/047_checkpoint_physical_slot.pl" make check; do :; done
> By the way, At the bottom of test
046_checkpoint_logical_slot.pl, if
> you expect the checkpoint to complete before sending the immediate
> shutdown request, I would suggest to use a wait_for_log() based on
> "checkpoint complete" or an equivalent loop. What you are doing in
> the test is unstable as written.
Exactly. I've proposed the fix with wait_for_log() in [1]. Nevertheless, both cases (immediate stop before checkpoint completion, and immediate stop after checkpoint completion) must work without hang.
Links.
