Re: Stabilize 026_overwrite_contrecord test

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Stabilize 026_overwrite_contrecord test
Date: 2026-09-04 14:02:44
Message-ID: CAHGQGwHKLDS-F+tsJK6HMUB4OTtAiGEhL+qXSweBXdC6XcQZLg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 2:00 AM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 03.09.2026 03:33, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, this failure is also something that was puzzling me a bit, but I
> did not take the time to dig into it. Enforcing a larger checkpoint
> timeout sounds like a safety measure good enough, at quick glance.

Thanks!

> where all such failures are enumerated with links to corresponding
> reports/discussions, e.g. I reported this one previously:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9ffdb19a-7a89-424e-925a-dd981c37f0ba%40gmail.com

Thanks for the pointer!

Reading your previous report, my understanding is that the failure was
also caused by a checkpoint during the test. So the proposed fix, which
increases checkpoint_timeout to prevent such checkpoints,
seems consistent with that analysis.

So, barring any objections, I'll commit the patch.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrei Lepikhov 2026-09-04 14:06:02 Make the transition state of avg(int2)/avg(int4)/sum(int2)/sum(int4) internal
Previous Message Jan Nidzwetzki 2026-09-04 13:51:06 Re: Re:[PATCH] Speed up repeat() for larger counts