| From: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x |
| Date: | 2023-08-28 13:58:01 |
| Message-ID: | ZOyn6VJsSW9fFwOK@msg.df7cb.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Re: Andres Freund
> > Thanks. I realised that it's easy enough to test that theory about
> > cleanup locks by hacking ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() to return
> > false randomly. Then the test occasionally fails as described. Seems
> > like we'll need to fix that test, but it's not evidence of a server
> > bug, and my signal handler refactoring patch is in the clear. Thanks
> > for testing it!
>
> WRT fixing the test: I think just using VACUUM FREEZE ought to do the job?
> After changing all the VACUUMs to VACUUM FREEZEs, 031_recovery_conflict.pl
> passes even after I make ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() fail 100%.
I have now applied the last two patches to postgresql-17 so see if the
build is more stable. (So far I had only tried in manual tests.)
Fwiw this is also causing pain on PostgreSQL 16:
Most of the failing builds in
https://pgdgbuild.dus.dg-i.net/view/Snapshot/job/postgresql-16-binaries-snapshot/
are on s390x and likely due to this problem.
This should be fixed before the 16 release.
Christoph
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-08-28 14:00:14 | Re: Eager page freeze criteria clarification |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2023-08-28 13:51:07 | Re: Disabling Heap-Only Tuples |