Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe)

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 9:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Apr 2023, at 16:06, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:02 PM John Naylor
> > <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> ...that call to background_psql doesn't look like other ones that have
"key => value". Is there something I'm missing?
> >
> > Thanks for reporting. I think that the patch needs to be updated since
> > commit 664d757531e1 changed background psql TAP functions. I've
> > attached the updated patch.

Thanks, it passes for me now.

> Is there a risk that the background psql will time out on slow systems
during
> the consumption of 2B xid's? Since you mainly want to hold it open for
the
> duration of testing you might want to bump it to avoid false negatives on
slow
> test systems.

If they're that slow, I'd worry more about generating 20GB of xact status
data. That's why the tests are disabled by default.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 9:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:

> > On 27 Apr 2023, at 16:06, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:02 PM John Naylor
> > <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> ...that call to background_psql doesn't look like other ones that have
> "key => value". Is there something I'm missing?
> >
> > Thanks for reporting. I think that the patch needs to be updated since
> > commit 664d757531e1 changed background psql TAP functions. I've
> > attached the updated patch.
>
> Is there a risk that the background psql will time out on slow systems
> during
> the consumption of 2B xid's? Since you mainly want to hold it open for the
> duration of testing you might want to bump it to avoid false negatives on
> slow
> test systems.
>
> --
> Daniel Gustafsson
>
>

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com