On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 6:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 2:46 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:09 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 7:54 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I've attached the patch. In addition to the test Vignesh prepared, I > > > > added one test for the message for creating a slot that checks if the > > > > statistics are initialized after re-creating the same name slot. > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure how much useful your new test is because you are testing > > > it for slot name for which we have removed the slot file. It is not > > > related to stat messages this patch is sending. I think we can leave > > > that for now. > > > > I might be missing something but I think the test is related to the > > message for creating a slot that initializes all counters. No? If > > there is no that message, we will end up getting old stats if a > > message for dropping slot gets lost (simulated by dropping slot file) > > and the same name slot is created. > > > > The test is not waiting for a new slot creation message to reach the > stats collector. So, if the old slot data still exists in the file and > now when we read stats via backend, then won't there exists a chance > that old slot stats data still exists?
You're right. We should wait for the message to reach the collector. Or should we remove that test case? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
