On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:50 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM <e...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2021.02.15. 12:31 Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 5:58 PM Erik Rijkers <e...@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 this bug) > > > > > > > > > +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 did that) > > > > 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. >
Yeah, I was also able to see an issue with this test without a patch and it got fixed after the patch. Pushed! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
