Horton
Menu

Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication

shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>

View thread
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
To: Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>
Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>, surya poondla <suryapoondla4@gmail.com>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: 2026-04-09T10:02:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 9:55 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 1:31 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Ajin. Would you be able to share the timing of test (complete
> > file) as well with this change in testfile.
>
> There was a small typo in the file I shared. (fixed and updated)
>
> The times are:
>
> # +++ tap check in src/test/recovery +++
> [14:22:31] t/053_synchronized_standby_slots_quorum.pl .. ok     6453
> ms ( 0.01 usr  0.00 sys +  0.36 cusr  0.49 csys =  0.86 CPU)
> [14:22:37]
> All tests successful.
> Files=1, Tests=14,  6 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr  0.00 sys +  0.36 cusr
>  0.49 csys =  0.87 CPU)
> Result: PASS
>

Okay, looks good. 6 secs is far better than previous case of 60-100 secs.

thanks
Shveta