On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 6:19 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 8:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:05 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 12:30 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > PSA a patch adding a test for this scenario. > > > > > > I am not sure this test case is exactly targeting the problematic > > > behavior because that will depends upon the order of execution of the > > > apply workers right? > > > > > > > Yeah, so we can't guarantee that this test will always reproduce the > > problem but OTOH, I have tried two times and it reproduced both times. > > I guess we don't have a similar test where Truncate will replicate to > > two subscriptions, otherwise, we would have caught such a problem. > > Having said that, I am fine with leaving this test if others feel so > > on the grounds that it won't always lead to the problem reported. > > > > If there is any concern that the problem won't always happen then I > think we should just increase the numbers of subscriptions. > > Having more simultaneous subscriptions (e.g. I have tried 4). will > make it much more likely for the test to encounter the deadlock, and > it probably would also be quite a useful worker stress test in it's > own right. >
I don't think we need to go that far. > ~~ > > Also, should this test be in the 010_truncate,pl, > +1 for keeping it in 010_truncate.pl but remove the synchronous part of it from the testcase and comments as that is not required. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
