Re: Random pg_upgrade 004_subscription test failure on drongo

From: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Random pg_upgrade 004_subscription test failure on drongo
Date: 2025-09-22 08:58:35
Message-ID: CALDaNm1NtWVosSSb9mp3OKic60em5HF2zmURC77MLWyYLMWqyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 18:54, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 18:10, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hmm, this problem isn't limited to this one pg_upgrade test, right? It
> > could happen with any pg_upgrade invocation. And perhaps in a running
> > server too, if a relfilenumber is reused quickly. In dropdb() and
> > DropTableSpace() we do this:
> >
> > WaitForProcSignalBarrier(EmitProcSignalBarrier(PROCSIGNAL_BARRIER_SMGRRELEASE));
> >
> > Should we do the same here? Not sure where exactly to put that; perhaps
> > in mdcreate(), if the creation fails with STATUS_DELETE_PENDING.
>
> How about a patch similar to the attached one? I have run pg_upgrade
> tests multiple times, but unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the
> issue or verify these changes.

CFBot reported an issue in one of the machines, here is an updated
version for the same.

Regards,
Vignesh

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Fix-issue-with-file-handle-retention-during-CREAT.patch application/octet-stream 2.7 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Чумак Антон 2025-09-22 09:13:46 Re: [PATCH] Introduce unified support for composite GUC options
Previous Message Mircea Cadariu 2025-09-22 08:56:26 Re: vacuumdb --analyze-only does not need to issue VACUUM (ONLY_DATABASE_STATS) ?