Re: tests against running server occasionally fail, postgres_fdw & tenk1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tests against running server occasionally fail, postgres_fdw & tenk1
Date: 2023-02-26 19:51:45
Message-ID: 30782.1677441105@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-12-08 16:15:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> The most frequent case is postgres_fdw, which somewhat regularly fails with a
>> regression.diff like this:
>> WHERE application_name = 'fdw_retry_check';
>> pg_terminate_backend
>> ----------------------
>> - t
>> -(1 row)
>> +(0 rows)

> Unless somebody comes up with a way to make the test more reliable pretty
> soon, I think we should just remove it. It's one of the most frequently
> flapping tests at the moment.

If that's the only diff, we could just hide it, say by writing

do $$ begin
PERFORM pg_terminate_backend(pid, 180000) FROM pg_stat_activity
WHERE application_name = 'fdw_retry_check';
end $$;

The actually important thing is the failure check after this;
we don't care that much whether the initially-created connection
is still live at this point.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-02-26 19:53:53 Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-02-26 19:43:40 Re: tests against running server occasionally fail, postgres_fdw & tenk1