On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:15:35AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:50:51AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > 027_stream_regress.pl has:
> >
> > if (PostgreSQL::Test::Utils::has_wal_read_bug)
> > {
> > # We'd prefer to use Test::More->builder->todo_start, but the bug causes
> > # this test file to die(), not merely to fail.
> > plan skip_all => 'filesystem bug';
> > }
> >
> > Is the die() referenced there the one from the system_or_bail() call
> > that commit a096813b got rid of?
>
> No, it was the 'croak "timed out waiting for catchup"',
> e.g. https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=tadarida&dt=2022-01-25%2016%3A56%3A26
>
> > Here's a failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl that smells like
> > concurrent pread() corruption:
> >
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=tadarida&dt=2022-05-16%2015%3A45%3A54
> >
> > 2022-05-16 18:10:33.375 CEST [52106:1] LOG: started streaming WAL
> > from primary at 0/3000000 on timeline 1
> > 2022-05-16 18:10:33.621 CEST [52105:5] LOG: incorrect resource
> > manager data checksum in record at 0/338FDC8
> > 2022-05-16 18:10:33.622 CEST [52106:2] FATAL: terminating walreceiver
> > process due to administrator command
>
> Agreed. Here, too:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=tadarida&dt=2022-05-09%2015%3A46%3A03
>
> > Presumably we also need the has_wal_read_bug kludge in all these new
> > tests that use replication.
>
> That is an option. One alternative is to reconfigure those three animals to
> remove --enable-tap-tests. Another alternative is to make the build system
> skip all files of all TAP suites on affected systems. Handling this on a
> file-by-file basis seemed reasonable to me when only two files had failed that
> way. Now, five files have failed. We have wait_for_catchup calls in
> fifty-one files, and I wouldn't have chosen the has_wal_read_bug approach if I
> had expected fifty-one files to eventually call it. I could tolerate it,
> though.
Squashing another test that failed multiple times (commit a9f8ca6) led me to
think of another option, attached. When wait_for_catchup() fails under
has_wal_read_bug(), end the suite with an abrupt success. Thoughts?