Re: More time spending with "delete pending"

Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 18.11.2020 23:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now, the ones on the 10 and 11 branches are all from pg_ctl, which
>> does not use pgwin32_open() in those branches, only native open().
>> So those aren't fair to count against it. But we have nearly as
>> many similar failures in HEAD, which surely is going through
>> pgwin32_open(). So either we don't really have adequate protection
>> against delete-pending files, or there is some other effect we haven't
>> explained yet.

> Can you confirm that there are no such failures on REL_12_STABLE and
> REL_13_STABLE for last three (or maybe six) months? Maybe something
> changed in HEAD then?

Hmm, that is an interesting question isn't it. Here's a search going
back a full year. There are a few in v12 --- interestingly, all on
the statistics file, none from pg_ctl --- and none in v13. Of course,
v13 has only existed as a separate branch since 2020-06-07.

There's also a buildfarm test-coverage artifact involved. The bulk
of the HEAD reports are from dory and walleye, neither of which are
building v13 as yet, because of unclear problems [1]. I think those
two animals build much more frequently than our other Windows animals,
too, so the fact that they have more may be just because of that and
not because they're somehow more susceptible. Because of that, I'm not
sure that we have enough evidence to say that v13 is better than HEAD.
If there is some new bug, it's post-v12, but maybe not post-v13. But
v12 is evidently not perfect either.

regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BBEBhvHhM-Bn628pf-LsjqRh3Ang7qCSBG0Ga%2B7KwhGqrNUPw%40mail.gmail.com