Re: [BUG] recovery of prepared transactions during promotion can fail - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Julian Markwort
Subject Re: [BUG] recovery of prepared transactions during promotion can fail
Date
Msg-id bb97b1e8c04ecdc3df1c1e0acf833d42f3a3f5df.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUG] recovery of prepared transactions during promotion can fail  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: [BUG] recovery of prepared transactions during promotion can fail  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
First off, thanks for the quick reaction and reviews, I appreciate it.

On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 14:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> But that won't connect work as the segment requested is now a partial
> one in the primary's pg_wal, still the standby wants it.

I think since 009_twophase.pl doesn't use archiving so far, it's not a good idea to enable it generally, for all those
tests. It changes too much of the behaviour.

> I think that it is better
> for now to just undo has_archiving in has_archiving, and tackle the
> coverage with a separate test, perhaps only for HEAD.

I see you've already undone it.
Attached is a patch for 009_twophase.pl to just try this corner case at the very end, so as not to influence other
existing tests in suite.

When I run this on REL_14_8 I get the error again, sort of as a sanity check...

Kind regards
Julian

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments
Next
From: Nishant Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: wrong results with self join + enable_nestloop off