From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: buildfarm failures after pgstat patch |
Date: | 2007-05-27 16:42:45 |
Message-ID: | 25902.1180284165@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 01:45:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, just saw that myself. Fixed the backend-side problem, but it
>> would be interesting to find out what ECPG is doing that wasn't exposed
>> by the core regression tests ... maybe we need another regression test.
> Don't see anything that special before the backend crashes.
Actually, what was provoking it was that several of the ECPG tests
disconnect in the middle of a transaction, which was exposing the fact
that pgstat's on_proc_exit hook ran before we'd performed the abort
in ShutdownPostgres. The Asserts I'd sprinkled in there to test the
transaction-awareness logic were unhappy. The visible failure would
be at some random later point, when the crash-recovery logic killed the
backend running the next test.
Is it worth adding something to the regular regression tests to exercise
that code path?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2007-05-27 18:19:48 | Re: Reviewing temp_tablespaces GUC patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-27 16:05:44 | Re: Prepare/Declare |