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

From Bertrand Drouvot
Subject Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Date
Msg-id ZbJLQGQ0ZEwsUS/u@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:54:45PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 1:25 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 02:57:30AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed. I split the original 0001 patch into 3 patches as suggested.
> > > Here is the V68 patch set.
> 
> Thanks, I have pushed 0001.
> 
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Some comments.
> >
> > Looking at 0002:
> >
> > 1 ===
> >
> > +      <para>The following options are supported:</para>
> >
> > What about "The following option is supported"? (as currently only the "FAILOVER"
> > is)
> >
> > 2 ===
> >
> > What about adding some TAP tests too? (I can see that ALTER_REPLICATION_SLOT test
> > is added in v68-0004 but I think having some in 0002 would make sense too).
> >
> 
> The subscription tests in v68-0003 will test this functionality. The
> one advantage of adding separate tests for this is that if in the
> future we extend this replication command, it could be convenient to
> test various options. However, the same could be said about existing
> replication commands as well.

I initially did check for "START_REPLICATION" and I saw it's part of 
006_logical_decoding.pl (but did not check all the "REPLICATION" commands).

That said, it's more a Nit and I think it's fine with having the test in v68-0004
(as it is currently done) + the ones in v68-0003.

> But is it worth having extra tests which
> will be anyway covered in the next commit in a few days?
> 
> I understand that it is a good idea and makes one comfortable to have
> tests for each separate commit but OTOH, in the longer term it will
> just be adding more test time without achieving much benefit. I think
> we can tell explicitly in the commit message of this patch that the
> subsequent commit will cover the tests for this functionality

Yeah, I think that's enough (at least someone reading the commit message, the 
diff changes and not following this dedicated thread closely would know the lack
of test is not a miss).

> One minor comment on 0002:
> +          so that logical replication can be resumed after failover.
> +         </para>
> 
> Can we move this and similar comments or doc changes to the later 0004
> patch where we are syncing the slots?

Sure.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: Current Connection Information
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: remaining sql/json patches