Hi, On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 05:12:12PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 4:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > + 'postgres', > > + "SELECT '$inactive_since_on_primary'::timestamptz < > > '$inactive_since_on_standby'::timestamptz AND > > + '$inactive_since_on_standby'::timestamptz < > > '$slot_sync_time'::timestamptz;" > > > > Shall we do <= check as we are doing in the main function > > get_slot_inactive_since_value as the time duration is less so it can > > be the same as well? Similarly, please check other tests. > > I get you. If the tests are so fast that losing a bit of precision > might cause tests to fail. So, I'v added equality check for all the > tests.
> Please find the attached v32-0001 patch with the above review comments > addressed. Thanks! Just one comment on v32-0001: +# Synced slot on the standby must get its own inactive_since. +is( $standby1->safe_psql( + 'postgres', + "SELECT '$inactive_since_on_primary'::timestamptz <= '$inactive_since_on_standby'::timestamptz AND + '$inactive_since_on_standby'::timestamptz <= '$slot_sync_time'::timestamptz;" + ), + "t", + 'synchronized slot has got its own inactive_since'); + By using <= we are not testing that it must get its own inactive_since (as we allow them to be equal in the test). I think we should just add some usleep() where appropriate and deny equality during the tests on inactive_since. Except for the above, v32-0001 LGTM. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
