Horton

Re: BUG: Former primary node might stuck when started as a standby

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Date: 2026-03-03T06:13:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 04:02:53AM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> I had a concern that some BF animals have not enable the injection point yet
> thus coverage might be decreased for them. But it's OK for me to fix
> it.

Requiring injection points to be enabled so as we have a strict
control over the standby snapshot records does not strike me as a bad
requirement in itself.  Most of the animals use the switch these days.
It's a bit sad if this is not entirely stable in pre-v16 branches, but
a stable post-v17 behavior would always be better than an unstable
behavior everywhere.

> I preferred to add descriptions at the place checking enable_injection_points.
> See the updated version.

+	autovacuum = off
+	checkpoint_timeout = 1h

Why do we need these?  An explanation seems in order in the shape of a
commit, or these should be removed.

Is there a different trick than the one posted at [1] to check the
stability of the proposal?  I am wondering if I am missing something,
or if that's all.  Alexander?

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1cf52d2-c344-4dfd-a918-e5f20ff04fa2@gmail.com
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Fix rare instability in recovery TAP test 004_timeline_switch

  2. Fix rare instability in recovery TAP test 009_twophase