From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Simplify backend terminate and wait logic in postgres_fdw test |
Date: | 2021-04-09 00:21:52 |
Message-ID: | YG+dcIJrFKHUw03L@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:27:56PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Agree. Please see the attached patch, I removed a fixed waiting time.
> Instead of relying on pg_stat_activity, pg_sleep and
> pg_stat_clear_snapshot, now it depends on pg_terminate_backend and
> pg_wait_for_backend_termination. This way we could reduce the
> functions that the procedure terminate_backend_and_wait uses and also
> the new functions pg_terminate_backend and
> pg_wait_for_backend_termination gets a test coverage.
+ EXIT WHEN is_terminated;
+ SELECT * INTO is_terminated FROM pg_wait_for_backend_termination(pid_v, 1000);
This is still a regression if the termination takes more than 1s,
no? In such a case terminate_backend_and_wait() would issue a WARNING
and pollute the regression test output. I can see the point of what
you are achieving here, and that's a good idea, but from the point of
view of the buildfarm the WARNING introduced by aaf0432 is a no-go. I
honestly don't quite get the benefit in issuing a WARNING in this case
anyway, as the code already returns false on timeout so as caller
would know the status of the operation.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2021-04-09 00:23:02 | Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-09 00:17:28 | Re: Lots of incorrect comments in nodeFuncs.c |