On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:38 PM Drouvot, Bertrand <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/24/23 11:45 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 11:54 AM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 11:24 AM Drouvot, Bertrand > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >> > >> Few comments: > >> ============ > >> > > > > +# We can not test if the WAL file still exists immediately. > > +# We need to let some time to the standby to actually "remove" it. > > +my $i = 0; > > +while (1) > > +{ > > + last if !-f $standby_walfile; > > + if ($i++ == 10 * $default_timeout) > > + { > > + die > > + "could not determine if WAL file has been retained or not, can't > > continue"; > > + } > > + usleep(100_000); > > +} > > > > Is this adhoc wait required because we can't guarantee that the > > checkpoint is complete on standby even after using wait_for_catchup? > > Yes, the restart point on the standby is not necessary completed even after > wait_for_catchup is done. > > > Is there a guarantee that it can never fail on some slower machines? > > > > We are waiting here at a maximum for 10 * $default_timeout (means 3 minutes) > before > we time out. Would you prefer to wait more than 3 minutes at a maximum? >
No, because I don't know what would be a suitable timeout here. At this stage, I don't have a good idea on how to implement this test in a better way. Can we split this into a separate patch as the first test is a bit straightforward, we can push that one and then brainstorm on if there is a better way to test this functionality. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
