On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> 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 been applied on standby
>>> after at least the delay wanted. A maximum delay of 90s is authorized,
>>> like poll_query_until.
>>
>> Hmm, okay, that's great. A question: what happens if the test itself is
>> slow and the servers are fast, and the test doesn't manage to run two
>> iterations before the two seconds have elapsed? This may happen on
>> overloaded or slow servers, if you're unlucky.
>
> Yes, a failure would happen. The same thought occurred to me during a
> long flight. And this is why the previous patch was full of meh.
>
>> I don't have any ideas on ensuring that we don't apply earlier than the
>> given period at the moment.
>
> Attached is one, which is based on timestamp values queried from the
> standby server. We could use as well perl's localtime call to
> calculate the time delay.
Actually, the attached is better. This one relies on time() to perform
the delay checks, and takes care of things even for slow machines.
--
Michael
