| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |
| Date: | 2022-03-25 03:02:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzk3RYzqdaOs5PUqoUjd=_LbWc7zdDzV6rR6D3kM3C=fNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:59 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks. Ahh, déjà vu... this probably needs the same treatment as
> b700f96c and 3414099c provided for the reloptions test. Well, at
> least the first one. Here's a patch like that.
If you want to know whether or not the buildfarm will have problems
due to VACUUM failing to get a cleanup lock randomly, then I suggest
that you use an approach like the one from my patch here:
https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkiB-qcsBmWrpzP0nxvrQExoUts1d7TYShg_DrkOHeg4Q@mail.gmail.com
I recently tried it again myself. With the gizmo in place the tests
fail in exactly the same way you've had problems with on the
buildfarm. On the first try, even.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-03-25 03:02:52 | Re: Corruption during WAL replay |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-03-25 02:46:55 | Re: Fix typo in standby.c |