On 3/29/22 13:47, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:33 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/29/22 12:00, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll take a look later.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is still failing [1][2].
>>>
>>> [1] - https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=florican&dt=2022-03-28%2005%3A16%3A53
>>> [2] - https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=flaviventris&dt=2022-03-24%2013%3A13%3A08
>>>
>>
>> AFAICS we've concluded this is a pre-existing issue, not something
>> introduced by a recently committed patch, and I don't think there's any
>> proposal how to fix that.
>>
>
> I have suggested in email [1] that increasing values
> max_sync_workers_per_subscription/max_logical_replication_workers
> should solve this issue. Now, whether this is a previous issue or
> behavior can be debatable but I think it happens for the new test case
> added by commit c91f71b9dc.
>
IMHO that'd be just hiding the actual issue, which is the failure to
sync the subscription in some circumstances. We should fix that, not
just make sure the tests don't trigger it.
>> So I've put that on the back burner until
>> after the current CF.
>>
>
> Okay, last time you didn't mention that you want to look at it after
> CF. I just assumed that you want to take a look after pushing the main
> column list patch, so thought of sending a reminder but I am fine if
> you want to look at it after CF.
>
OK, sorry for not being clearer in my response.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
