Re: Why is src/test/modules/committs/t/002_standby.pl flaky?

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is src/test/modules/committs/t/002_standby.pl flaky?
Date: 2022-01-15 00:19:42
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKsGRSR5Q8cn0p4xHps9yBs7haEbC8GDHZecyX-h092Mw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:44 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > The patch Alexander tested most recently uses a tri-state eof flag [...]
>
> What about instead giving WalReceiverConn an internal WaitEventSet, and using
> that consistently? I've attached a draft for that.
>
> Alexander, could you test with that patch applied?

Isn't your patch nearly identical to one that I already posted, that
Alexander tested and reported success with here?

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5d507424-13ce-d19f-2f5d-ab4c6a987316%40gmail.com

I can believe that fixes walreceiver (if we're sure that there isn't a
libpq-changes-the-socket problem), but AFAICS the same problem exists
for postgres_fdw and async append. That's why I moved to trying to
fix the multiple-WES thing (though of course I agree we should be
using long lived WESes wherever possible, I just didn't think that
seemed back-patchable, so it's more of a feature patch for the
future).

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2022-01-15 00:40:59 Re: Why is src/test/modules/committs/t/002_standby.pl flaky?
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2022-01-14 23:54:57 Re: Adding CI to our tree