Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Noah Misch wrote: >> >>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Alvaro, >>> since you committed

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Noah Misch wrote: > >> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Alvaro, >> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open >> item. > > That's correct. Since

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

Noah Misch wrote: > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Alvaro, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. That's correct. Since we already had a patch available, I pushed it. I'll wait for a few days before marking the

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

Michael Paquier wrote: > Actually, the attached is better. This one relies on time() to perform > the delay checks, and takes care of things even for slow machines. Thanks, pushed with some minor adjustments. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development,

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:18:46PM +0100, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > >> Michael Paquier wrote: > >>> After sleeping (best

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Michael Paquier wrote: >>> After sleeping (best debugger ever) on that, actually a way popped up >>> in my mind, and I propose

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> After sleeping (best debugger ever) on that, actually a way popped up >> in my mind, and I propose the attached, which refactors a bit 005 and >> checks that the LSN position of master has

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Is there anything we can do to short-circuit the wait in the case that > > replication happens promptly? A one-minute wait would be acceptable we > > terminate it early by checking

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Is there anything we can do to short-circuit the wait in the case that > replication happens promptly? A one-minute wait would be acceptable we > terminate it early by checking every second. After sleeping (best

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > Here are a couple of ways to address this problem: > > 1) Remove the check before applying the delay > > 2) Increase recovery_min_apply_delay to a time that will allow even > > slow

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Here are a couple of ways to address this problem: > 1) Remove the check before applying the delay > 2) Increase recovery_min_apply_delay to a time that will allow even > slow machines to see a difference. By

[HACKERS] Recovery test failure for recovery_min_apply_delay on hamster

Hi all, I have enabled yesterday the recovery test suite on hamster, and we did not have to wait long before seeing the first failure on it, the machine being slow as hell so it is quite good at catching race conditions: