Re: anole's failed timeouts test

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Hello,
> step lsto: SET lock_timeout = 5000; SET statement_timeout = 6000;
> step update: DELETE FROM accounts WHERE accountid = 'checking'; <waiting ...>
> step update: <... completed>
> -ERROR: canceling statement due to lock timeout
> +ERROR: canceling statement due to statement timeout

> No matter how slow the machine is, how can you manage to get statement
> timeout to fire first?

The statement timer starts running first; the lock timer only starts
to run when we begin to wait for a lock. So if the session goes to
sleep for > 1 second in between those events, this is unsurprising.

There are a bunch of tests in timeouts.spec that are unreasonably
slow because the timeouts have been whacked until even very slow/
overloaded machines will pass the tests. Maybe we need to tweak
this one too.

regards, tom lane