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 |
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) ? |