Dear Michael, > Requiring injection points to be enabled so as we have a strict > control over the standby snapshot records does not strike me as a bad > requirement in itself. Most of the animals use the switch these days. > It's a bit sad if this is not entirely stable in pre-v16 branches, but > a stable post-v17 behavior would always be better than an unstable > behavior everywhere.
OK, thanks for the clarification. I will create patches for back branches after it is stabilized on HEAD. (Current one might be able to be applied, not sure) > + autovacuum = off > + checkpoint_timeout = 1h > > Why do we need these? An explanation seems in order in the shape of a > commit, or these should be removed. I think it is needed to stabilize the test. If checkpointer and/or may generate the WAL between the switchover, the test can fail with the same reason as bgwriter's activity. I added comments for it. > Is there a different trick than the one posted at [1] to check the > stability of the proposal? I am wondering if I am missing something, > or if that's all. Alexander? > > [1]: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1cf52d2-c344-4dfd-a918-e5f20ff04fa > [email protected] To clarify, I have no knowledge for it. Best regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
v4-0001-Stabilize-009_twophase.pl.patch
Description: v4-0001-Stabilize-009_twophase.pl.patch
