| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x |
| Date: | 2023-08-12 21:00:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20230812210006.ei7tutzwcr5svyt6@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-08-12 15:50:24 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Thanks. I realised that it's easy enough to test that theory about
> cleanup locks by hacking ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() to return
> false randomly. Then the test occasionally fails as described. Seems
> like we'll need to fix that test, but it's not evidence of a server
> bug, and my signal handler refactoring patch is in the clear. Thanks
> for testing it!
WRT fixing the test: I think just using VACUUM FREEZE ought to do the job?
After changing all the VACUUMs to VACUUM FREEZEs, 031_recovery_conflict.pl
passes even after I make ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() fail 100%.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-08-12 21:03:37 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-08-12 20:05:04 | Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16. |