| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |
| Date: | 2026-08-24 01:25:07 |
| Message-ID: | aoudcxiVsZ1-BJKk@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 07:30:32PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I'm 99% sure this is a configuration issue in the test, not a bug in the
> online checksums code. It happens because with
>
> debug_parallel_query = regress
Is the coverage provided by debug_parallel_query useful to have in
this context?
> queries start enough parallel workers to exhaust max_worker_processes,
> and so we fail to start the checksum worker.
>
> I've modified the TAP tests to add
>
> max_worker_processes = 16
> max_parallel_workers = 16
>
> and with that change it passes just fine.
One option would be debug_parallel_query = off to shave the number of
workers spawned.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2026-08-24 01:53:57 | Re: Wrong results from join removal with DISTINCT ON + SRF subquery |
| Previous Message | Yilin Zhang | 2026-08-24 00:54:00 | Re: aio: Don't silently drop wait_event_info |