On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
> > On 2021.02.15. 12:31 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 5:58 PM Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > > > I compiled just now a binary from HEAD, and a binary from HEAD+patch
> > > > HEAD is still broken; your patch rescues it, so yes, fixed.
> > > > Maybe a test (check or check-world) should be added to run a second replica? (Assuming that would have caught
thisbug)
> > > >
> > > +1 for the idea of having a test for this. I have written a test for this.
> > > Thanks for the fix Amit, I could reproduce the issue without your fix
> > > and verified that the issue gets fixed with the patch you shared.
> > > Attached a patch for the same. Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > I have slightly modified the comments in the test case to make things
> > clear. I am planning not to backpatch this because there is no way in
> > the core code to hit this prior to commit ce0fdbfe97 and we haven't
> > received any complaints so far. What do you think?
>
> My tests indeed run OK with this.
>
> (I haven't tested whether the newly added test actually tests for the problem that was there - I suppose one of you
didthat)
>
I could re-create the scenario that you had faced with this test. This
test case is a simplified test of your script, I have removed the use
of pgbench, reduced the number of tables used and simulated the same
problem with the similar replication setup that you had used.
Regards,
Vignesh