Re: Recent eelpout failures on 9.x branches

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recent eelpout failures on 9.x branches
Date: 2020-12-02 06:56:04
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLVbeh87VrXvR4fo9nDOfxY7sk5Cv6=Lbds6bPmCnP1Tw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm also wondering a bit why the issue isn't affecting the newer
> branches. It's certainly not because we made the test shorter ...

I looked at htop while it was building the 9.x branches and saw
pg_basebackup sitting in D state waiting for glacial I/O. Perhaps
this was improved by the --no-sync option that got sprinkled around
the place in later releases?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ajin Cherian 2020-12-02 07:17:34 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2020-12-02 06:52:37 Re: pg_stat_statements oddity with track = all